Full text of "Studies in Manuscript Cultures"

See other formats

Jorg B. Quenzer, Dmitry Bondarev and Jan-Ulrich Sobisch (Eds.)

Manuscript Cultures: Mapping the Field

Studies in Manuscript Cultures

Edited by
Michael Friedrich
Harunaga Isaacson
Jorg B. Quenzer

Volume 1

Manuscript Cultures:
Mapping the Field

Edited by
Jorg B. Quenzer,
Dmitry Bondarev
and Jan-Ulrich Sobisch

DE GRUYTER

ISBN 978-3-11-022562-A
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-022563-1
e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-038A82-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie
detailed bibliographic data are available on the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

© 201A Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Munich/Boston
Typesetting: PTP-Berlin Protago-TEX-Production GmbH, Berlin
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leek
© Printed on acid-free paper
Printed in Germany

www.degruyter.com

Table of Contents

Jorg B. Quenzer

Introduction-1

Europe

Christian Brockmann

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning in Manuscripts from the First
Byzantine Humanism: The “Philosophical Collection”-11

Orient and Africa

Alessandro Bausi

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture-37

Florian Sobieroj

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China-79

Dmitry Bondarev

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria-113

South Asia

Dominik Wujastyk

Indian Manuscripts-159

Stefan Baums

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type-183

Gudrun Melzer

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Gilgit Region-227

A Glimpse into a Scribes’ Workshop

vi Table of Contents

Central Asia

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science-275

Sam van Schaik

Towards a Tibetan Palaeography: Developing a Typology of Writing Styles in
Early Tibet-299

East Asia

Imre Galambos

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts-341

James Robson

The Archive Inside: Manuscripts Found within Chinese Religious
Statues-359

Index-375

Jorg B. Quenzer

Introduction

The invention of script and writing was one of the most important in the history
of mankind. The modern concept of the “book” has been shaped for hundreds of
years by the Western printed book; but for thousands of years before Gutenberg,
writing was handwriting, and books were manuscripts. Seen from an age when
electronic texts and the possibilities they provide seem increasingly to be replac¬
ing the traditional book and its functions, it has become clear that the modern
printed book is in fact much closer to the manuscript the notion of a “print revolu¬
tion” linked vdth the name of Gutenberg might suggest.

But it is not only the “digital revolution” that has led to a recent rise in interest
in manuscripts, but also new developments in a variety of seemingly unrelated
fields relevant to the scope and methodology of codicology. First, there has been
a growing awareness of the benefits of cross-disciplinary research; second, the
integration of science and technology has led to an enormous increase in our
knowledge of the manuscripts themselves and their history; thirdly, cultural
studies has rediscovered the materiality of texts; and finally, it is now, and more
than ever before, deemed necessary in our global age to take into consideration
the written traditions of Asia, Africa, and the Americas (not all of these of course
manuscript traditions in the strict sense), in order to arrive at a truly systematic
and comparative approach which extends not only to include manuscripts from
“non-European” cultures, but also their cultural context.

The articles in this volume - as well as the series in which it appears - belong
within this new approach, which we designate here as manuscript studies. In
manuscript studies, the manuscript is considered as object in its own right and
taken as a starting point for reconstruction of its cultural context.

Two main presuppositions of our research must be briefly outlined;

First, the manuscript is not to be read only as a vehicle for information con¬
veyed mainly through text or images, but studied as a physical object or artefact.
The text may be regarded as a constituent part of the object, but it is only one of
many such parts, and at times perhaps not even the most important one. Manu¬
script studies therefore focuses primarily on the artefact; a shift in perspective
that requires a certain amount of rethinking for traditional disciplines like philol¬
ogy, codicology, textual criticism and palaeography. In this regard, our approach
shares many affinities with the concept of material culture studies.

Second, the social and cultural context of the manuscript, as a material object,
must be studied and reconstructed as completely as possible. We refer to this

Jbrg B. Quenzer

context as the particular manuscript culture to which a given manuscript belongs;
the milieu in which it was and is produced, used and transmitted. It is, in turn,
influenced by the artefacts it produces, and thus constitutes a highly complex
whole changing in time. Furthermore, manuscript cultures are not necessarily
identical with regional (e.g. India) or religious (e.g. Islamic) cultures. In one place
and at one time, more than one manuscript culture can exist - for example, a
manuscript culture of religious specialists working parallel to that of a scholarly
elite. Florian Sobieroj, for example, discusses in his article (“Arabic Manuscripts
on the Periphery”) characteristics of manuscripts which arose on the periphery of
mainland Islam. He demonstrates that in spite of many common features, these
peripheral traditions differ from each other and from the Islamic centre in many
respects, for example in their choice of writing supports and types of script.

Following this line of inquiry, it is clear that, as a first step, ground-breaking
studies are required which not only contribute to a better understanding of indi¬
vidual manuscript cultures, but even more importantly provide data for compari¬
son, both from a systematic (synchronic) and from a historical (diachronic) view¬
point. With this in mind, it is precisely the broad and heterogeneous spectrum of
cultures and disciplines involved that may help us overcome often unquestioned
stereotypes and naive dichotomies such as “Western vs. Oriental”; stereotypes
which are not only popular within Europe, but also in Asia and Africa. One of
the challenges which emerges from our approach is the problem of appropriate
terminology. If one were simply to adopt Western scholarly language, one would
run the risk of overlooking characteristics of other cultures simply because they
remain un-conceptualised in our academic discourse.

The cross-disciplinary approach furthermore helps at least partly to even out
imbalances in current research. It is estimated that there are presently far more
than ten million extant manuscripts from Asian and African cultures; this vast
body of evidence stands, however, in stark contrast to the state of research. In
fact, the only pre-modern book culture that has been extensively studied is that
of Western Europe. Yet another sub-field can therefore be defined vdthin our
general approach; one that involved transferring, testing, and reviewing schol¬
arly methodologies against examples from outside of Europe. Dmitry Bondarev
in his article (“West African Manuscripts”) outlines the reasons for the paucity of
work on sub-Saharan manuscripts written in African languages in Arabic script
(AJami). He applies a multidisciplinary approach to a comparative study of differ¬
ent manuscript types from northern Nigeria. Two particular types (genealogical
lists and Qur’anic manuscripts) are examined with regard to their format, layout,
script, linguistic content, and function, as well as their historical and religious
contexts. The chapter shows that one more prestigious type of manuscript can
influence the physical (non-textual) characteristics of other manuscripts.

Introduction

In addition, in many places, there exist local traditions of scholarship with
experience in using manuscripts and their own traditions of knowledge, and
although their interests may not be identical to those of modern researchers,
they certainly provide valuable insights. Thus, Alessandro Bausi in his article
(“Writing, Copying, Translating”) examines complex “traditional” philological
methods used by the copyists in Ethiopian manuscript culture, who focussed on
“gaps”, “adjustments” and “normalisation” in the chain of traditional textual
transmission. This allows Bausi to argue that the Ethiopian manuscript transmis¬
sion has remained largely free of textual variation. This in turn helps to legitimate
reconstructive principles as effective in establishing the transmission of a single
text.

The necessary shift in perspective suggested here relates to the following main
aspects of manuscript cultures:

First of all, the physical production of the manuscript in the broadest sense
should be made an object of study (including knowledge of the material support,
writing instruments and writing materials). Further points of interest are the act
of vnriting, the physical assembling of the writing material, and modes of storage
and their effects on the transmission of the manuscript. Finally, socio-historical
factors such as economic forces must be taken into consideration, especially
when dealing with commissioned works or factory-like production processes.
For example, Stefan Baum’s article (“Gandharan Scrolls”) sheds light on a recent
discovery of an ancient manuscript type. After detailed investigation of its physi¬
cal features he advances a hypothesis about the date and place of origin of the
Gandharan manuscript tradition of short-format scrolls.

The function of the manuscript is primarily defined by its being the carrier
of text, images or other information. In some contexts, it is also a space of inter¬
action between user and text. Thus one can find notes on manuscripts that are
written records of thoughts or verbal communication about the text. These notes
may include systematised paratexts: glosses, marginalia and colophons. Func¬
tionally, manuscripts are also used in primarily oral traditions as aide-memoires,
as scripts that contain only key words, or as guides for recitation. The article by
Imre Galambos (“Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts”) is a
study of various scribal notations attested in the Dunhuang manuscripts of the
5^^ to the 10* centuries CE. He demonstrates that these manuscripts provide evi¬
dence for the existence of a sophisticated notational system in the Chinese scribal
tradition of medieval times. This system was widely used by scribes and readers
who applied it for different ends.

In other cases, the function of manuscripts lies beyond their status as carri¬
ers of information in the narrow sense. James Robson (“The Archive Inside”) dis-

Jbrg B. Quenzer

cusses manuscripts found within religious statues in China, a tradition which can
be traced back to India. These materials include paratextual data which locate
the manuscripts and the statues in space and time, and offer clues to religious
practices among the laity.

Furthermore, one must take into consideration the numerous decisions that
precede and accompany every single act of production or reception. Some of
these are intentional decisions of the individual scribe, while others are deter¬
mined by other factors, such as the genre of the text, or the school or tradition to
which the scribe belongs. These decisions could be related to the materiality of
the manuscripts, the corporeality of the scribe and reader, and to the aesthetic
and intellectual influence of anyone involved in the production and reception
process. Dominik Wujastyk (“Indian Manuscripts”) focuses on the Sanskrit and
Prakrit writing tradition from the century BCE to the 19* century CE. By sketch¬
ing out the main aspects of Indian manuscript cultures, he reconstructs various
examples of scribal decision-making. Furthermore, he discusses problems of
preservation, textual criticism and editorial technique.

At a more abstract level, one must also take into account the relationship
between manuscripts and the history of ideas or the history of thought. Christian
Brockmann (“Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning in Manuscripts from
the First Byzantine Humanism”) shows how, at a crucial moment in the history
of textual transmission from Antiquity, the interaction of cultural and scribal
innovations affected manuscript production, leading on the one hand to a renais¬
sance of ancient literature, and on the other to the development of a new type of
script. Methodologically, his article is a fine example of how to apply traditional
disciplines like palaeography to a larger cultural context.

Using the same approach, Gudrun Melzer (“A Palaeographic Study of a Bud¬
dhist Manuscript from the Gilgit Region”) is able to reconstruct the very compli¬
cated vnriting process of a specific manuscript, which involved several scribes. At
the same time, her article shows how closely the production of a manuscript may
be related to broader religious developments: here to diminishing interest in a
specific group of texts.

One may then ask if similarities between the social and cultural contexts of
different manuscript cultures on the one hand, and the material evidence on the
other, allow for hypotheses regarding empirical typology and perhaps even uni-
versals. The contribution of Sam van Schaik (“Towards a Tibetan Palaeography”)
is a fascinating attempt to make use of Western categories of writing styles within
Tibetan palaeography. In doing so, he is at the same time laying the ground for
further research on the origins of Tibetan script.

Last, but not least, manuscript studies are methodologically supplemented
by drawing on methods from science and technology. While research on Euro-

Introduction

pean artefacts has benefited from these methods for a long time, these kinds of
analytical tools - aside from digitalisation - are not well-known to specialists in
manuscript cultures outside of Europe. The article of Agnieszka Helman-Wazny
(“Tibetan Manuscripts: Between History and Science”) is devoted to paper, which
was the dominant writing support in Central and East Asia for more than 1,500
years. By applying methods such as optical microscopy, dendrochronology, etc.,
she develops a new typology based on scientific examination.

Information technology allows for large amounts of data to be compared and
analysed according to objective criteria. Consequently, in contrast to the primar¬
ily subjective judgments in previous studies in the fields of Asian and African
manuscripts, these methods enable more objective statements to be made, for
example in palaeographic studies or about the identification of fragments. On
the whole, they could help to identify standards of manuscript production in dif¬
ferent cultures.

The distinctions presented above are, of course, heuristic. They are meant
to facilitate analysis, although in many cases, it will be difficult to separate them
absolutely. Depending on the characteristics of the culture, the object and the
research question, they may be of unequal importance in different cases. In man¬
uscript studies, however, we need to keep the fact that manuscript cultures are
complex wholes in mind. This is what the contributions presented in this volume
try to exemplify.

★ ★ ★

This publication is the result of two independent activities. In October 2007, Jan-
Ulrich Sobisch, professor for Tibetan Studies at the University of Copenhagen,
organised a four day workshop on “Manuscriptology.” This workshop convened
20 speakers and about the same number of experts from around the world who
discussed manuscript cultures from Iceland and Medieval Europe to India,
Central and East Asian, all the way to Latin America. For many of them it was
the first time to discuss scholarly problems outside their disciplines, a dialogue
that was considered stimulating and productive by all participants. In both its
thematic and methodological diversity, this conference marked to a certain extent
the first manifestation of “manuscript studies” emerging as a cross-disciplinary
and cross-cultural field of study, albeit not yet in a systematic way.

The timing of this conference coincided with the culmination of activities at
the University of Hamburg, where there had been a strong research interest in
manuscripts for decades, especially in Asian philologies. Since 1972 there has
been an ongoing Indological project of monumental proportions to digitalise and
catalogue almost 200,000 manuscripts from Nepal (Nepal-German Manuscript

Jbrg B. Quenzer

Preservation Project and its successor Nepalese-German Manuscript Cataloguing
Project) funded by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research
Association). In the years since, projects on Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Tamil, and
Ethiopian manuscripts wrere to followr.

Until the beginning of this century, however, these research interests were
isolated from one another. The results of a project on “Sinological Manuscripto-
logy” under the direction of Michael Friedrich served as a starting point to invite
researchers from other disciplines at Hamburg as well as external experts, and
finally, in 2007, a research unit “Manuscript Cultures in Asia and Africa” was
established at the Asien-Afrika-Institut of the University of Hamburg receiving
support from DFG beginning the following year. At the same time, a major pub¬
lication project was drafted; the Encyclopaedia of Manuscript Cultures in Asia
and Africa (EMCAA), which is to appear in the near future. When other European
disciplines, such as Art History, Musicology, and the Classics, joined in 2011,
this research group gave rise to the DFG-funded Sonderforschungsbereich 950
“Manuscript Cultures in Asia, Africa and Europe” and the associated “Centre for
the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC).” Thus there exists now an institutional
address for manuscript studies, the first of its kind. In addition to the cross-disci¬
plinary research conducted at CSMC, with its manuscript laboratory for imaging
and material analysis, the Centre’s members are also actively involved in field
work, such as the preservation of endangered manuscripts. The graduate school
affiliated with CSMC serves to train the next generation of scholars and encour¬
age them to explore the new field.

The current volume consists of contributions based on the previous work¬
shop in Copenhagen and is supplemented by articles by additional experts. With
the exception of Latin America, all of the large manuscript cultures are repre¬
sented, characterised by their specific materiality, languages, and scripts, as well
as their cultural traditions. Because of the methodological considerations out¬
lined above, significantly more space is given to regions and cultures outside of
Europe. Similarly, special attention was paid to assemble pioneering investiga¬
tions conducted within the traditional sub-disciplines of these fields of research,
namely palaeography and codicology.

In conclusion, the editors would like first and foremost to express their grati¬
tude to the contributors for their enduring patience - and at the same time to
apologise for the delays. The publication process was prolonged again and again
for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, we hope that the results are worth the
wait - and that the articles, both as individual ground-breaking studies and as
a whole, will stimulate many colleagues to explore the promising field of manu¬
script studies.

Introduction

Finally, the editors would like to express their immense gratitude to Cosima
Schwarke (University of Hamburg) for managing the last stage of proofreading,
and to Peter Agocs (University College London) for his careful style editing.

Hamburg, September 2014

Christian Brockmann

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning
in Manuscripts from the First Byzantine
Humanism: The “Philosophical Collection”'

The body of ancient Greek literary, philosophical and scientific works, compris¬
ing contributions from such divergent authors as Homer, Pindar, Sophocles, Aris¬
tophanes, Hippocrates, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, and Galen,
has been preserved in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Byzantine Empire for
centuries and even millennia due to a continuous practice of manuscript work.
In a permanent process of transmission, enrichment and innovation the text¬
books of Greek knowledge were copied, annotated, commented upon and used in
teaching and research from generation to generation. Thanks to the interest and
intense work of countless scribes, scholars, practitioners and readers the master¬
pieces of Greek literature survived into the modern era of printing and until the
present day.

The most crucial stage in this long-lasting practice of transmission falls
within the 9* and 10* century, a period sometimes designated as the First Byz¬
antine Humanism.^ Two movements - a cultural and a graphical-medial one -
moulded the manuscript culture of this era with lasting effects: Antiquity and its
literature was once more restored to the centre of attention and exerted a strong
impact on culture and on intellectual life. At the same time, the new minuscule
script, developed from the common cursive script, became the predominant cal¬
ligraphic writing system.^

Without exception, manuscripts containing religious, literary or scientific
texts and canonical works had been written in majuscule script throughout the
many centuries of Antiquity and Late Antiquity. An ample amount of schol¬
arly energy was invested throughout the large-scale process of transliteration
(metacharakterismos) and revision as this body of texts was converted into manu¬
scripts in the new minuscule script. Whereas the majuscule continued to be used
in various forms to distinguish titles, tables of content and marginal notes, and
still served as the main script for biblical and religious manuscripts, the process
of transliteration was all but comprehensive when it came to literary, philosophi-

1 For the English translation I owe a debt of thanks to Daniel Deckers, Johanna Cordes and Bet-
tina Hdfermann.

2 Lemerle 1971, Wilson 1983a, 79-147, Rosenqvist 2007, 58-69.

3 Hunger 1989, 64-65; De Gregorio 2000; Harlfinger, 2000; Perria 2000; Ronconi 2003.

Christian Brockmann

cal and scientific texts. This change in the medium correlates with a thorough
revision of the transmission. The identification, collection and revision of texts
focused on those works that were regarded as central to the history of literature
and science or as pivotal to future research. This large-scale systematic translit¬
eration, while being a substantial scholarly and cultural achievement, thus left
a marked dent in the transmission of Ancient Greek literary and philosophical
works. This observation is strongly supported by the fact that the oldest extant
integral manuscripts of such texts have with a rare few exceptions been produced
during this era.

Thus, the tides of time are not the sole cause of the loss of all but a few at
least partially complete antique and late antique manuscripts, i.e. book rolls and
early codices, though numerous smaller fragments survive. The prevalence of
the minuscule script in the 9* and 10* century, and the concurrent translitera¬
tion contributed significantly to this development, for the new manuscripts did
not just present themselves in new graphical attire, they moreover represented
a more current, carefully and philologically revised state of knowledge. Thus
anyone seriously pursuing scholarship had to rely on them, i.e. read in them and
copy or excerpt from them, instead of on their older majuscule brethren.

Before proceeding to look at some of the most famous manuscripts from this
era of the First Byzantine Humanism, let us briefly consider the extent to which
fragments and manuscripts from Antiquity and Late Antiquity have survived.

A fundamental difficulty Classical scholarship faces compared to modern
branches of literary studies is that no autographs or even manuscripts written
by the author’s contemporaries survive. Even of the presumably numerous text¬
books produced in the centuries-long interim between Classical Antiquity and
First Byzantine Humanism, only small fragments have survived for the most
part. Thus, as a general rule we are dealing with a gap of at least twelve centuries
between the creation of a work in the Classical period of Greece and the composi¬
tion of its oldest extant complete and reliable manuscript copy.

Numerous surviving fragments from the huge amount of papyrus rolls from
Ancient Greece help in filling this gap, and exceptionally fortunate circumstances
have in some cases contributed to the survival of not too severely damaged papyri
transmitting extensive literary texts in nearly integral form (e.g. the papyri of
Aristotle’s Constitution of Athens and of some comedies of Menander).

In the late Roman empire, in the 2°*^ to 4* centuries CE, the papyrus-roll lost
its role as the main medium for preserving, circulating and transmitting literary
texts to be replaced by a much more durable and resilient type of manuscript.

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

the parchment manuscript in codex form.'* Though this change of material and
structure to the nearly perfect form of a book, unchanged up to this day in its
fundamental features, occurred at this early stage, few examples of this original
codex production have been preserved. That rare group of precious manuscripts,
written in majuscule script, includes the famous Bible codices of the 4*** century,
the Vaticanus graecus 1209^ and the Codex Sinaiticus.® Manuscripts of secular
literature are particularly rare, however a gem of pharmacological work and a his¬
toriographic manuscript have been preserved; the splendidly illuminated Vienna
Dioscurides of the early 6* century (Vindobonensis medicus graecus 1)^ and parts
of the Roman History of Cassius Dio Cocceianus (Vaticanus graecus 1288, 5* or
century).® Additionally, more than 100 parchment leaves from a manuscript
with Galen’s On the Powers of Foodstuff in a majuscule script from around 500 CE
have been preserved in the Wolfenbiittel codex Weissenburgensis 64. However,
the Weissenburgensis is a palimpsest codex, i.e. this text had been erased to reuse
the leaves in the production of a new codex together with leaves from other man¬
uscripts, which are now in a shuffled and interspersed order as opposed to that
of the original texts. The numerous leaves from the unbound Galen manuscript
were mixed with leaves from Greek, Latin and Gothic-Latin manuscripts of the
Bible as well as of Ambrosiaster’s commentary on the epistle of St. Paul to the
Romans, dating from the late 5* to early century, which had also been disas¬
sembled to reuse their parchment. In the 8* century, all these leaves from the
several manuscripts were erased, overwritten with a Latin work and bound again.
Through this process, a codex of Isidor of Seville’s Etymologiae came into being.®
Let us now turn away from these rare copies of complete Greek manuscripts
from Late Antiquity and consider the vast body of minuscule codices from the
Byzantine Middle Ages and the Renaissance that supplement the small number
of older manuscripts. We shall take a closer look at some exceptional examples
from the time of the First Byzantine Humanism, and in particular at what has

4 Turner 1977; Goulet 2007, 34-36.

5 A specimen is given in Follieri 1969, no. 1.

6 <http;//codexsinaiticus.org/en/>.

7 Facsimile; Dioscurides. Codex Vindobonensis med. gr. 1 der Osterreichischen Nationalbiblio-
thek, Graz 1965-1970.

8 Facsimile; Pius Franchi de’ Cavalieri (ed.) (1908), Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Ro-
manarum lib. LXXIX LXXX quae supersunt, codex Vaticanus graecus 1288 (Codices e Vaticanis
selecti. Series maior 9), Leipzig.

9 Falluomini 1999,11-46. Digital images of the codex; Wolfenbiittler Digitale Bibliothek, Codex
Guelferbytanus 64 Weissenburgensis <http;//diglib.hab.de/wdb.php?dir=mss/64-weiss>.

Christian Brockmann

been called the “Philosophical Collection”, dated to the third quarter of the 9*
century, of which 18 manuscripts have been identified so far.“

Nine scribes cooperated to create this collection of philosophical and scien¬
tific works,^^ at whose centre we have the famous Plato codex Parisinus graecus
1807^^ and manuscripts of Plato’s commentators Proclus, Damascius and Olympi-
odorus from Late Antiquity (Laurentianus Plut. 80,9^^, Vaticanus gr. 2197, Mar-
cianus gr. 196, Marcianus gr. 246, the palimpsest codex Par. Suppl. gr. 921). The
further manuscripts comprise, inter alia, commentaries on Aristotle by Ammo-
nius and Simplicius (Marcianus gr. 226 and the palimpsest codex Parisinus gr.
2575^'*), works of Alexander of Aphrodisias {Quaestiones, On the soul, On fate -
Marcianus gr. 258) and John Philoponus’ anti-Proclean On the Eternity of the
World (Marcianus gr. 236).

The learned scribes or their patrons also pursued other interests, as is par¬
ticularly evident in Vaticanus gr. 1594 containing the Almagest of Ptolemy, or in
the Heidelberg multiple-text manuscript Palatinus gr. 398. The latter reunites
rare geographical treatises, e.g. those on the naval explorations of the Black and
Red Sea coasts and of the west coast of Africa, vdth assorted wondrous tales and
metamorphoses, with mythology’s tragic love stories collected by Parthenius on
behalf of the Roman poet Cornelius Callus, and vdth letters attributed to eminent
figures such as Hippocrates and Themistocles.^

The scribe of the Heidelberg manuscript is identical to the scribe of the Plato
codex Parisinus gr. 1807 (cf. figures 1 and 2). He must have been the leader or
central figure in the group of scribes and scholars who compiled this collection,
for Parisinus gr. 1962, Marcianus gr. 246, Laurentianus Plut. 80,9, Vaticanus gr.
2197 and the original writing in the palimpsest Parisinus suppl. gr. 921 are also
in his hand.^® Jean Irigoin further assigns the Vienna Aristotle codex Vindobo-
nensis phil. gr. 100 to the circle responsible for the Philosophical Collection,
as numerous marginal notes and interventions by a second hand, such as e.g.
added punctuation and diacriticals of a peculiar, nearly horizontal shape, are

10 Allen 1893; Wilson 1983a, 86-88; Westerink 1986, LXXlll-LXXX; Westerink 1990; Perria 1991;
Brams 1999, 268; Hoffmann 2000, 621-623; Cataldi Palau 2001, 250-251; Rashed 2007a; Goulet
2007, 54-57; Cavallo 2005; Cavallo 2007; Kavrus-Hoffman 2011, 17-29. Ronconi is opposing the
idea of a coherent collection and devides the manuscripts into three different groups: Ronconi
2012; Ronconi 2013.

11 Perria 1991, 56-101, Cataldi Palau 2001, 252-255, Cavallo 2005, 254-255, Cavallo 2009.

12 For online images refer to GaUica (cf. references).

13 Online through the “Teca Digitale” (cf. references).

14 Cataldi Palau 2001, with plates 52-57.

15 Available online through “Heidelberger historische Bestande - digital” (cf. references).

16 Perria 1991, 56-71; Cataldi Palau 2001, 252.

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

+ nftATWHOC +

j^.'b y Wl Ww V ^X”

pfaiyTBi) ynukWVii^iyi <(ya^y

jjyri! K-rV” V •M V ^

,,„.^yUyoi4yit1jJ^r'#Tir4yiTiirTiy'
*nry o rt^ cy-Ay • t <N^

V* rp^ <(VjD y • w y'or* ^

%{UaA^^ y 0 v«f* •»«

yo a* • w* *IVf dT

•Y«

f^i.*T*^**f
t)f ArN»t«K

atMH«faiiii

•rw^i*n

•t«,*¥-^ Mr
..f«-

‘,‘T**f^

_. (6iivy ay *i-*^i'Tiiim»y|i^^*fr^ti>|:ai^''fm*

vQnry

jn Y^TimjA-joj oAm

C7T>tiv^V**^'f^'y-Atvi<Ly^

»n> yp Tniro ^ <r, • tAj>anD a* ^ :

- ctrtTgp*^i^U,jD«Tirpy^Y-ay^^!r*'^»*t
•nry 0 (Tv^V'yi t tCd 0 w

(Tf |rl/^ it^ 1 oy *^411101111!^ • ^ iLyaj
(^-Wiy-^druyTi^ y^nrTV(i^-^vy«y'

1x0^ nnLy y

•frtw* <fr^y^^Tun^ •■o ^

^ 10 'TT» y y Jtd y ^ ciV^ oj

y£^oyJr0nj- a ^ d yA Y^^^I.rt^yliT

• O^li^-gD air01<fT^ '. tlJl^ m y

Fig- 1: Parisinus gr. 1807, fol. 3 (upper part). Bibliotheque nationale de France, source gallica.
bnf.fr

Strongly reminiscent of the style of punctuation and diacritical marks particular
to the main scribe of the Collection.^^ The distinctive abbreviation for ap(peiajaai)
(“mark this”), a stylised sigma and eta, also appears to be identical. What is more,
the marginal notes used to structure the text contain catchwords in a particular
small majuscule script that is reminiscent of that of the scholia and additions in
the Plato codex Parisinus gr. 1807 (cf. fig.s 3,4 and 1).^® Additionally, Jozef Brams
uncovered further traces pointing to a close interrelation between the Philosophi¬
cal Collection and the codex Vindobonensis in book 6, in book 7 and in the first
four chapters of book 8 of Physics-}^ To illustrate the structure of these books in
the Vindobonensis, its annotator systematically adds the same specific version
of the paragraphos sign that we know the main scribe of the Collection used to
mark structural units, and that can also be observed as a more general addi-

17 Irigoin 1957, 7; Perria 1991, 98-100 and 56-62, in particular 60, fig. 2; Koch 2011. Irigoin points
to examples of the characteristic added diacriticals and punctuation marks on fol.s 24 and 26v.
Further similar additions may be found e.g. on fol. 6v at the beginning of Physics book 2 (images
maybe consulted online through the Teuchos platform, cf. references).

18 Cf. Irigoin 1957, 7; Perria 1991, 99 and 61, fig. 4; Koch 2011. Further examples for use of
cq(pEia)aai): Vindobonensis Phil. gr. 100, fol.s 9, lOv, 189v, 199v; Parisinus gr. 1807, fol.s 9v, 300v;
Palatinus gr. 398, fol.s 61v, 69v.

19 Brams 1999, 273; Rashed 2001, 99.

Christian Brockmann

•f niffrutioy nef'iif ui'TlTsurK

T *.v -ni/i ey rrpa.Mtvi ji,Tj

• » » • t «

• » • » t

(«.

mpiR,ypt<oy

nBpia6/LY^Kn.KC

ni-ptfyYnnMc

ntpxn.^yKtnniy

riBptitnna.pt^ey
nf-pTHpirin-Kc
ne-pia® n,y wpi^c
n epi R.ty Kur M.«c
neplsyBr^iAos
nrftK£n,^cy
ne-pl£pna.n.yKMc
* • «» * « • -«>»

l*. ntpiA.Kfrfr'W'C
ifr nBpYjv.z^'^Mc
IS

> f X -r — •

riTHcnBptXTf^Mpc

Ym ne-piKe-vips.c

!♦ ntf tnA.rv'cpA.'iyc

i< nfrf 1 a,Tpeyc

KA. nfrpinfrx cyifuMC

^ X

i«» nepiNa.ui A£C
i<r n(-ptVu»Kia.cc
nC'prYnnLpmep
nr'ft^A.yn.n.cy

KS ntpxs.nptA.’mc
f'fptln.KmiKt
KK r.e-ptKn.M-p«t
:«♦ nppt

^ ^ r

nfrptKe'VrtTtMt

/u. r;e*pT4.TTVT«i'T®y

AB nBp'iJLN.'frinn«c

nr nfrptJLieA.eH.9c

nJL n fr p Ti< 9 p y 9 y

Rfr nepieyAiMfrwKc

n!? neplaprvfru/Hnc:

• '»*■» • • • -*>i» • ^ • <*4.. • • • ^ • t

•t'nA-p-^-eHtoc Kop■N.M^,^uJ^^^^,n.^i^^ ^aTiptm

t^TlDD ^ dV. Tii y iCf yxi'rV'fV T V ^

01 y »r®o y 6p w »rl luB Y •nra-rfrlAi^i.flrn*y

^^^►yAyo O',® cr^^rl yJLp^^’^L. AJUJ ^

— t^a^Jj-iu’TTuya-j)»Tim-ptLrrl«Ti*TTi>ynnj^lA-TT»yTL^y^

ycu*TT>rrp»>y yJA-<irn>;T^ 7 -n) 0 ' ^iSj-Ayyi^y ooy.toArpu
Qjp.a-y ojy^y ~T Tt y

— axr^my cL^yLDfAjf OJ' cAj|iirT8y-l''-'njti-p.^ya^*iu'Uj6‘

-p®> y fry 6-y o ^ # y “* V

•yyo'tnr.y «iArTtu<7'Vyfry-6^Ayfrfr^'^i^i»^' yvyi'rt'y
nff^nypisoy X y^lAiffiy.oy-o^ay ttpmnu
(yfr^oW-i^ov<yVjir if/rftur vm^fJAi<r<vy>S'vr>^x^^
ou-^Vv.* ij y ofr’rfr Ti-S^ ^ <( ^V-»pu»"

fKva-Ua rfrlAitfry 'fry JU^aiir^To: ;irpUi.yT5v'><»

M i c-n p i'*.rn p i. t . i^M. frve r«. « «-•? r'^ ^'' '^

Fig. 2: U niversitatsbibiiothek Heideiberg/Cod. Pai. graec. 398/173v.

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

-Tj'— -v • o* jiAy;v«^:T

a'^. 44^*j|f 'un Vl*<: V***^*"*^1*

^»j: ^ \*K t^~m^ij^*>M~V*rm^ o» •««^d^ot^o Os^

_ ai/t a^lL4^Vai^. *w«i^t^«y««dL^uju ; Vr>^ao^*B^«Hj«J ■

I W*|«« 4jU«i oV'Mf^W ‘i#Vi*^iluo»i^«Y 'T*

I**— currwi *v *&> 41 ,/x^ W* ^Y'H £

X‘ UtI*“ iyy«Y*^T»\a'«Y

U.ai A ti U^ rw^^t *Ta>\:\«/xVM< cy^tAtagiy ^y

II <^iY Y^Y*V«^ **^ ^

V - ^lugY**^*^"'***^*-*^** g-Y* w,-* «k(«fwg^Y t

*<U' ’** *t^V"*Y **Y

n>iiy^pCT*Y'*^ ^•/4V»''^^>tij\My*^Y*-^oY ■

-- «8t4 - ♦T»**^ »««<r^' ot^ Y"^ -ray .•^•wLui^-^y U^ YVa^«*'>^««Y’^*V ‘

— <«Y<<k^'4 '*1****^ '

U^o^ay.^ Y /^aiuAyyiAy^ '77*V**' '

• m ^fuv^nW* *»♦%/*

»T«****«'‘*|f «tV^T« -vpa 'r^kyY'^^'^* Y *“ ^

- ««* ^

• at*T%* vf aRVC

•T*S?:'»«rwa«i«

‘^tJrl

Fig- 3: Vindobonensis Phil. Gr. 100, fol. 2A (lower half). Wien, Osterreichische Nationalbiblio-
thek. Cod. Phil. Gr. 100 © ONE, publication courtesy of the Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek

iMA4M<>>'pv''^“'®®j!r')5”'^ '

o^•\ul^6^•^: o"wV6>iv

rnoinf^AlM'^'I^TCY^®'’'*'^ 'H')^-

^o■tn^® ^ ^ .^y-nnLf lUrliif)

og^- o^'mfifinif'M
•ro"™! Of x» 1^*1*

og <( luL^'Aon’Tajrpr’f •'T»

^ v(i^ frp 0 y U»pyo y 0 ff* 0 ^
niT^ imi'Of f<urrTi*7Tjv li^

- cAYaT^irnLr|Vtvti^/l^rfCfrY»yu
•^y^tv^ixirr* y ffv
<^V

OtTT^~V’®f $"
yOt-ltCr® i|»^tAir'''^y 6r\iJiy^fTfrt»V^
cr^tn »Tfl I ti^Jv ^
e*\n^

^-oyuiity 0 yr V ®

-rt ^il^irlfi^i Huu • o^>fTL|'<fal ^ IT^
dlrj^i O' ay

nwy ocn^V *H ^^3

pnKny^^^^V^X^V

li^ y Ai/y<Of^6^*-»

af ] fy iy cLv^^

•or^ 1 ^y a^ cr^Q) 0 y y ^ 0 yi

crfrOj* ^rl^oiM^^^yury^viV^* $

vnnruTD y Vp 0 nuy • V Of V

"4n*y ytlA^LiiTO<r6-#j^lA^a^yify

Fig- 4: Parisinus gr. 1807, fol. 11 (upper part). Bibliotheque nationale de France, source gallica.
bnf.fr

Christian Brockmann

tion to the plain linear paragraph marks in other parts of the Vienna Aristotle.^”
These specific pamgraphoi are distinguished by use of a light brown ink and by
a strong vertical stem with a light s-shaped stroke added to it, making the whole
look somewhat like a stylised, compressed letter tau. Brams showed this sign to
have been used in marking those passages of the Vienna Aristotle that Simpli¬
cius covered in his commentary on Physics, and that the Simplicius manuscript in
the Philosophical Collection, i.e. Marcianus gr. 226, exhibits the same marking of
the corresponding passages. We may thus assume our annotator to have worked
simultaneously on the Aristotle manuscript and on that of the commentary, and
to have concurrently added these structural markers to them. While the ductus
of the script and the characteristics of the symbols used are indeed strikingly
similar between the Plato codex and the annotations in the Aristotle manuscript,
the identity of the scribes is by no means ascertained beyond doubt Yet we may
at least conclude that the style of the additional marginal notes and marks in the
Vindobonensis point to the circle of scribes and scholars responsible for creat¬
ing the Philosophical Collection. Hence it seems safe to posit a close connection
between the Collection and the Vienna Aristotle.

In this section, we will consider several striking examples of how the anno¬
tator structured his Aristotle manuscript. The subject matter of numerous pas¬
sages is outlined briefly in short marginal notes in the particular kind of small
majuscule script. Thus, in book 4 of Physics the summary of important opinions
of Aristotle’s predecessors is labeled “opinions on time” (56^ai Trepi xpdvou, fol.
24, on Physics IV 10, 218a33, cf. figure 3). A few lines later we have another note
indicating the reasoning that time and movement or change are not identical (oti
6 xpovoq ouK eoTi Kivpaiq, fol. 24, on Physics IV10,218bl0).^^ Many such pointers.

20 From fol. 32v to fol. 47v (verifiable online). This sign’s use by the main scribe of the Philo¬
sophical Collection is particularly evident in Palatinus gr. 398, e.g. on fol.s 60, 61v, 62 and with
an even more strongly stylised vertical stroke whose swash turns into a small cross (further cf.
fig. 5 in Perria 1992, 70). While I found no evidence of this paragraphos used to mark passages in
Parisinus gr. 1807, a similar sign is occasionally added to a scholion as a concluding ornament
(fol.s 115, 146, not entirely dissimilar to that used in a marginal note on fol. 156 of Laurentianus
Plut. 80,9). Further examples of this sign in other parts of Vindobonensis Phil. gr. 100 include
fol.s 1, Iv, 147v, 157,176, 191. Fol.s 13v and 21v exhibit the sign next to structuring marginalia in
the small majuscule script typical of the annotator. The sign is executed less meticulously as we
proceed to the final books of Metaphysics in the Vindobonensis, with the vertical stroke losing
straightened and plain.

21 Irigoin 1962, 300 = Irigoin 2003, 218.

22 Marginal notes adding similar structure may be found e.g. on fols. 38v, 44v and 45. The an¬
notator seems to have been particularly interested in passages dealing with time. This coincides
with the fact that the Philosophical Collection also transmits the short treatise on time by Zach¬
ary of Chalcedon (in codex Marcianus gr. 258, fol. 324), a friend of eminent scholar and patriarch

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

•A V.v*'J V* * n i nUvvi t(y 4 .,*4* V-T\>.

V'l.-V-.

U'TrAAMUff Uar \iiiMr-r 'T»<rr 4 -

»V'>.Lyau V^'H'

Un^-x« ya^i^Lny'-Vt'* • y »t a uxi^u 3
— -| • bt^»y«y 4aX ^a^wu^.av Vl«4 •w: ^AjIVlK'T'wy ^ ^ *»«'

• iTf- it/««li.Aij^ty.^nyW^yoy o-rrA ■trarl<b*i >tv ••rr ^ Vw

'tm f>Avrr»y iMiy C%^W*lLas*^«w uaU '■y-ratk^ay ■ '«X(Uyoy

'^•ra^May«pUAn«in-'<l^WM*iU.^V iyTrit»«lY^.^u« -TsroiUf^Umi
f ptia^y i^U ay « « 4^ 1"

ll«^ •w 4 f l»«Cyay -tii«a« ^1 W4 >«m<r
^ » y •'vay n'aoTay : ^^yAyny »T^y K'S*'^ 'Hli* jO »»o4j>*y y<»j'«*' -

V.4.«r.D*y ina^*'v4(y|tXArr«y \ioi* t rt vy« «r^i li«*y
^/«^ Y^y •yn«*y oy-;t»y 'ty I y-Vn^y yja •y-na>y- *r V ^wnl»—tMj

_-!«»*■ ^tly 4 ‘y «tM> alnv aoli ly v/y«y t»r- s ujImV y««~, tt*n*»v*'•tl »■ -ay
' — *»n»C - •'iay- 4 y_V »y ■»*'i »v»/» '/^y A* W14 •>j V<!(cHy % .^ 4 - t*«4

«>rwk ^ fT^y^**** * «^y«v 3 e«ai^ u <« y »y

Fig- 5: Vindobonensis Phil. Gr. 100, fol. 23v (detail) Wien, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek,
Cod. Phil. Gr. 100. © ONB, publication courtesy of the Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek

including those cited, are introduced by an abbreviation consisting of eni with
two letters chi above, which should likely be read as ETTixcipniioiTa, i.e. demon¬
stration or proof. We adduce further examples to illustrate our point; The various
arguments against the existence of time in Physics IV10,217b32 are similarly intro¬
duced by our annotator (fol. 23v, fig. 5): £TTix(Eipf[paTa) oti ouk eotiv 6 xpdvog. This
wording is strongly reminiscent of Simplicius, whose comments on this passage
commence thus: “He puts forth three arguments that (purport to) show that time
does not exist” (Tpia TiBpaiv EnixcipppuTa dciKvuvra oti ouk eotiv 6 xpdvog, Diels
1882a, 696). Another example in support of our interpretation of the introductory
abbreviation is found in the context of the arguments on the void and whether
movement can exist within it, where the significant importance of this passage
{Physics IV 8,215a24) is highlighted: £nix(£ipf[paTa) npaypaTEitudEOTaTa (fol. 22).
This briefest of indications also alludes to the tradition of Aristotelian exegesis
as evidenced by Simplicius’ comment on this passage, where the same adjective

Photius (approx. 810-890). Klaus Oehler has edited this work and proven that one of the argu¬
ments proffered in it is based on exactly that passage of Physics (Oehler 1957, 34). One has to
wonder whether there is a connection and if Zachary or Photius himself might have had access
to this manuscript. However, it is quite uncertain whether the Philosophical Collection can be
assigned to Photius’ circle (on this cf. below).

Christian Brockmann

in its rare superlative degree is used to underline the weight of the arguments:
Tag npaypaTEioJdeaTdTag vuv dnodci^Eig npoadyEi to) Aoyo) SEiKvug, oti ouk
EOTai Kivpaig ev kevcI) (Diels, 1882a, 671). It is evident from these examples that
the marginalia used to structure the manuscript and the extensive text of Aristo¬
tle are by no means spontaneously conceived marks of an arbitrary annotator,
but rather indicate a learned and thorough familiarity with the Antique and Late
Antique tradition of explaining Aristotle. The catchphrases in these annotational
headings clearly allude to this context. The same most likely holds true for the
cases where our annotator adds symbols or numbers instead of full marginalia
to retrace the structure of the argument. E.g. on fol. 7 in the left margin, he adds
additional pamgraphoi and letters representing Greek numerals in a light brown
ink to the existing marks from the original hand.

In the vicinity of the first examples (f. 23v, figure 5) we observe a philologi¬
cal intervention indicated in a thoroughly regular manner, namely an athetesis of
several lines of text, i.e. the indication that these lines are either not original or
had been transposed from their proper location. While this marginal indication is
not due to our annotator, but to the scribe of the Vindobonensis himself,^^ it never¬
theless illustrates the mechanisms of manuscript work of the learned scribes and
the long tradition from which they originate. In the case at hand, four lines of text
are marked to be deleted by the double use of an inverted diple obelismene, both
as interlinearily superimposed indicators of the beginning and end of the dubious
passage and next to all four lines in the margin in the manner of quotation indi¬
cators. Additionally, “they are declared void” is added vertically in the margin:
d0ETOuvTai {Physics IV 9, 217bl2-16).^'‘ The scribe most likely copied this term of
textual criticism from the original he used, for this passage treating the line of the
circle and various degrees of inclination had already been considered a duplication
of a previous argument (from Physics IV 9, 217b2-6) by the exegetes of Late Antiq¬
uity. Thus, Simplicius summarily observed: “This passage seems to repeat what
has been said before” (auxq q pqaig 5okeT xd npoTEpov cipqpCTa ndAiv AeyEiv).^^
He regarded these lines as uselessly rephrasing an argument vdthout adding any¬
thing to it, and observes, as he is wont, that the incriminated sentence was not
present in all manuscripts. According to his judgement, we are dealing with what
was originally a marginal note (a paragraphe) that was accidentally inserted into
the main text by a scribe, and we may add, further transposed by a few lines.^® John

23 Koch 2011.

24 Ibid.

25 Diels 1882a, 690.

26 Diels 1882a, 691: [...] dAA' ekeIvwv Tiq ecti napdcppaciq' 6i6 Koi ev Tiaiv avTiypacpoiq ou cpEpETOi
djq dno napaypacpfjq EiaEVEyOEiaa (xoiouToq Koi 6 tou Aoyou xupu^Tfip) [...].

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

Philoponus came to a similar conclusion and further informs us that “the exegetes
do not consider (these lines) to be au then tic”.Evidently, there was agreement on
this matter among the authorities interpreting the passage (even unto today).Yet,
in their careful methodology, Simplicius and Philoponus treat the text with rever¬
ence, opting not to radically excise the passage from their manuscripts, but rather
to observe their doubts in their commentary.^® As we have seen, the method used in
the Vindobonensis Phil. gr. 100, the oldest extant manuscript of Physics, is not dis¬
similar: The passage has been left in the text, in the (inappropriate) location where
it was found, but unambiguously indicated as spurious in the margin.

^ Cw* e q\ V •

*T* <rl TTV>KV Is <WT\UJ«

hi^too KoeT"

ooKap Hue’i«**>oo*roorivCi:a«

» • V » C »/ r ♦'rr

«> A«000«-»Tfo»*

V ' »v, >* y

"lOCO •'n6MKUfT*OOCafcX***-<^«t**
•*^7- K.U tT*--• 4f*p N.u^*r^

\VV\ XiAPOCO Kt

^6^‘u<V i*tTujL»*r»

aVcUwa •w”r0e»K«**70«Tnj f •* o*Ti'*A

•n ('UU iXp ***V- •TlJUKa*T*^rv

0***V*^^' TOA/nToOxa c-‘*

TTT«CctJLn»^*3«»JA» pfcp7t>tJT»i»>\fc ••♦f. U*n*

^ TOAjrw c -m c* pa c^occ. «o tu*» y

CUJTHO 0/A«C» pe^^jouOi MOi ^a ^

« fTVn ^€ y v

6 K *l\)Kw*S«K«k47%V«

Fig- 6: Plut. 87,6, fol. 229v © Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence, on concession of the
MiBACT.

27 Vitelli 1888, 701.

28 Cf. Diels 1882b, 32 and the commentaries by Ross 1936, 594 and Wagner 1995, 586.

29 The oldest extant manuscript of Philoponus’ commentary on Physics is Plut. 87,6 in the Bib¬
lioteca Medicea Laurenziana (12**' century, codex G in the editions of Aristotle and of Philopo¬
nus). It contains only Physics book IV, the text of Aristotle is quoted in lemmata followed by the
commentary. The passage in question (fol. 229v) also has the addition dGETOuvrai in vertical
lettering next to the lemma, followed by Philoponus’ commentary (figure 6, cf. online). On this
codex cf. Vitelli 1887, V-VIII, XIII-XIV and Wiesner’s description in Aristoteles Graecus (Moraux/
Harlfinger/Reinsch/Wiesner 1976), the latter available online through the Teuchos site.

Christian Brockmann

The second oldest manuscript of Physics, the famous codex Parisinus gr. 1853
from the mid-10*^ century (codex E), that like the Vindobonensis has De caelo,
De generatione et corruptione, Meteorologica and both the Metaphysics of Aris¬
totle and of Theophrast, and adds De anima and further treatises of the Parva
Natumlia to these, treats the mentioned passage in the same way as the Vienna
manuscript. On fol. 31, we observe the same indication dBcTouvTai in the right
margin - most likely from the hand of the first annotator of the manuscripts (E^,
10* century)^” - and plain oheloi to the left of the lines in questions (figure 7).^^

•’fri f V

»n 9yt£fc**i\ f ^ c

r • u-ffy -T^ ^kJt»,f m.o J -n SSa« ^^ K

►rtU-fry * y-ayTLy ^*rt o y*j-»if ^ I Iazt*'*

0V v^ltNCT*'• y .T® • y

*Tt o* V»^ ® "art! I Wjr\

__ a iKW Mtf ^ A A I

Fig- 7: Parisinus gr. 1853, foi. 31 (detaii). Bibiiotheque nationaie de France, source gaiiica.bnf.fr

This careful indication of textual criticism in both codices is clear and presents
evidence that the scribes and scholars involved in the production of these early
minuscule manuscripts had access to older manuscripts of the highest quality
that transmitted textual variants and observations of textual criticism. But the

30 On this script cf. Moraux 1967, 29f.: Hecquet-Devienne 2000, 126-132; Rashed 2001, 37-38,
43-48.

31 Oniine through Gaiiica, cf. references. The further manuscript reievant to textuai criticism,
Laurentianus Piut. 87,7, written by ioannikios (mid-12*'' century, codex F), has no indication that
the passage in question might not beiong to the text (foi. 42v, cf. oniine). On this manuscript cf.
Rashed 2001,131-159, and on the importance of ioannikios and his scribai coiiaborators further
cf. Wiison 1983b; Vuiiiemin-Diem/Rashed 1997; Primavesi 2006; Brockmann 2008.

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

manuscripts also bear witness to the thorough and expert nature of these scribes’
own work.^^

Let us now take a look on the very few passages that have been marked as
particularly noteworthy by the annotator of the Vienna Aristotle manuscripts
using the distinctive abbreviation for appciwaai. We find an almost completely
faded example of this mark in the margin of fol. 8 facing a line of text that con¬
tains the famous central thesis of Aristotle’s on the natural generation and the
part of the formal and efficient causes: “for man is generated by man and by the
sun” (dvBpcjnoq ydp dvBpojnov yevvdi xai pAioq, Physics II 2,194bl3).^^ Perhaps
surprisingly, our manuscript attests to a variant of this formula, for yevvdi was
originally followed by e^ uApq. However, this was apparently recognised as a spu¬
rious addition at some point, and the words erased in the manuscript are now
hardly discernable any more. The Parisinus gr. 1853 also has an erasure and cor¬
rection at this point, but its original content at that location can no longer be
reconstructed (fol. 12). The resulting text is the same as in the Vienna Aristotle
manuscript after the correction, which has been adopted by all modern editors
with good reason. In the Laurentianus Plut. 87,7 ei, uApq, though not included in
the main body of text, is superposed in a second hand (fol. 11, figure 8). Today’s
major editions neglect to mention this textual variant or uncertainty attested in
three of the most important manuscripts of Aristotle’s Physics. Obviously uApq
should not be part of the text of an edition, but we should be aware (and be made
aware) that even in passages like this the form of the text now considered to be
unambiguously correct is based on thorough previous manuscript work from
Antiquity through the Byzantine era.

In the chapters on chance and spontaneity in Physics, the statement that
some regard to automaton (i.e. spontaneity) as the cause of this world and of all
worlds (fol. 9, Physics II4,196a24) is the first item designated as noteworthy. The
nota bene mark also graces the lengthy argument’s final conclusion that nous and
physis (reason and nature) have priority over spontaneity and chance and are the
true and prior causes of the universe (fol. lOv, Physics II 6,198a9-13).^'‘ Further
evidence for a particular interest in passages dealing with the heaven, the heav¬
enly bodies and their mechanics is found much later in the manuscript, where
ari(p£i(uaai) marks a statement in book 9 of Metaphysics that “the sun and stars
and the whole visible heaven are always active, and there is no fear that they will

32 Cf. Diels 1882b, 19, 24f, but note Rashed’s unfavorable judgement on scribe E I of Parisinus
gr. 1853 (Rashed 2001, 39). On the importance of the two manuscripts to the textual tradition of
Metaphysics and De generatione et cormptione cf. Harlfinger 1979: Rashed 2001.

33 On this thesis cf. Oehler 1962a, 260-288; During 1966, 530-533.

34 The final passage has also been marked with aritpciwaai) in Parisinus gr. 1853 (fol. 15).

Christian Brockmann

Fig- 8: Pint. 87,7, foi. 11 (detaii). © Bibiioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Fiorence, on concession of
the MiBACT.

ever stop - a fear which the writers on physics entertain.” (fol. 172v, Metaphysics
IX 8,1050b22, transl. Tredennick, Aristotle 1968).

Aristotle colours his theoretical discourse on time in book 4 of Physics with
an unusual example he refers to as a mythical tale, and this passage (fol. 24), too,
receives the mark (jri(p£iajaai). This myth is used to illustrate the observation that
we do not perceive the passage of time unless we become aware of a change in our
thoughts. “... as it also seems to those who are said to lie asleep in Sardinia among
the heroes, for when they are awakened, they join the earlier Now to the later Now
and make one of them, excising the in-between since they did not experience it.”
{Physics IV11,218b23-27). According to Simplicius, these heroes are the nine sons
of Hercules, whose bodies were said to have been preserved completely intact
and whole after they met their deaths on the island. They had the appearance of
sleepers, and it became customary to take a long sleep in their vicinity to receive
dreams or experience other beneficial effects.^^

We may conclude from the occasional use of the nota bene indicator we have
seen that it cannot be adduced as evidence for any systematical epistemological
interest of the annotator. In the least, though, it does point to a certain fascina¬
tion with unusual theses or their refutation as well as for mythological matter and
paradoxical thought.^*’ Occasionally, quotes from poets or allusions to them are
also indicated in the margin,^^ as are key methodological conclusions of a theo¬
logical or scientific nature that may have been seen as useful quotes outside their
original contexts, such as “the divine encompasses all of nature” or “we have to

35 Diels 1882a, 707f. Further, cf. lohn Philoponus (Vitelli 1888, 717f.) as well as Rohde 1880 and
Ross 1936, 597.

36 Fol. 26 (referring to Physics IV 12, 221a22-23).

37 Fol. 189v (referring to the shortened quote of Homer at the end of Metaphysics book 12, 10,
1076a7) and fol. 199v (Metaphysics XIV 3,1091a5-10).

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

partly research the details ourselves, and partly learn them from other research¬
ers, and if those who considered the matter provide evidence to the contrary of
what has been said before, we have to appraise both opinions, but heed the more
accurate one.”^®

The discussed traces of learned intervention evident in the Vienna Aristotle
manuscript place it within the vicinity of the Philosophical Collection in general,
and of its main scribe in particular. This scribe has to be regarded as a man of
learning, as shown e.g. by Westerink, who points to the evidence of extensive
philological and critical intervention during the process of transcription in codex
Marcianus gr. 246 (written in the same hand), which contains the treatise On the
first principles of Damascius, considered to be one of the most intricate texts in
Greek literature.^® In view of the outstanding quality of these manuscripts and
their significance to the transmission of the Platonic and Neoplatonic works in
particular, as well as of the singular beauty of some of them such as e.g. the Plato
codex Parisinus gr. 1807, there have been many attempts to identify the main
scribe (or his supposed client) with one of the more eminent Constantinopoli-
tans of the time. The proposals include Photius, Leo the philosopher and, quite
recently brought forth by Marwan Rashed, Bardas the regent, but it is doubtful
that enough evidence will come to light to reach a consensus on this matter.'*”

One of the main arguments in support of a link between Parisinus gr. 1807 and
Leo is the marginal note on fol. 200 (i.e. Plato, Nomoi V 743b), frequently quoted,
that indicates the conclusion of the corrections by the “great” Leo: T£A(og) tcI)v
5iop0(aj)0£VTCJV uno tou peY(dAou) A£o(v)Tog (cf. fig. This note, set unusu¬
ally far in the margin to the outer right, is at least a few decades younger than the
main text. It is unlikely to be from the same annotator of the 10*^ century who left
traces on a few leaves, e.g. on fol.s 201 and 215 (fig. 10),'*^ but might be contempo¬
rary. Thus, our note may possibly be nearly a century or even more younger than
the completion of the manuscript. Any conclusions from it to the original context
of the manuscript’s creation, its owner or annotator must therefore be taken with
more than a grain of salt. The entire note might, to add just one scenario, have

38 Folio 188v (Metaphysics XII8,1074b3) and fol. 188 (Metaphysics XII8,1073bl3-17).

39 Westerink 1986, LXXVII; Westerink 1990,122f.

40 Cf. e.g. Irigoin 1962, 298-300 = 2003, 215-218; Wilson 1983a, 86-88; Westerink 1986, LXXVI-
LXXX; Westerink 1990; Hoffmann 2000, 621-623; Rashed 2007a, 533-537; Cavallo 2007.

41 Lemerle 1971,168; Wilson 1983a, 84; Irigoin 1962, 293 = Irigoin 2003, 207.

42 The ductus of the annotator is reminiscent of that of scribe D of the Aristotle manuscript
Parisinus gr. 1741 (cf. Tafel II b and c in Harlfinger/Reinsch 1970). Cf. the online images of the
Bibliotheque nationale de France (Gallica, cf. references). The annotator supplied the text in
two extensive lacunae on fol. 201 and 215, respectively (Nomoi 5, 745a-c; 6, 783b-d), for these cf.
Irigoin 1986,12 = Irigoin 2003, 93; Saffrey 2007, 4f, 8.

Christian Brockmann

^ et<AiT^®y

afv-yvij^*

^»l«A»iM*.Mc'k

rif »'aa*.MA./\tc^

•ff «iaa>a a>«AA)^

ii/v^ry '•i%t
irA|^*c

V »< W f t X«r?i
l^f 'l^HItC

O'. |iL>ir7^ CL^ •K tr ‘ptw;.

^ ^rnu rt /1 'T^ I ^'•tn ^ y Txiifi V

<^rrli itf tu ^ x^f'Xa ^fT» y •f'^troToj
y ct'rr^^^ji' { •nrpi.cT^® 1 fr^Srr^
y rti* oulif>\iy mron^a^rn^y

\Ay4 fT^E y tty ci.^^^i.nijmy^o

rYnA^f ftyrl nT»\n^ V'nryttrrv*'

o^TTi|f*Tir^ttti rr^ * •Tf^ryorr*^f|y
tf lUyTl rftTtrr'»TT»trt»yjD<AA'

^wIuiIlb O' 4 o ^ (fV-* ^"fr •

»ro»7^TA/TOn) ^*nm*iv^itt|-o'T~’

'rr*

(

Fig- 9: Parisinus gr. 1807, fol. 200 (upper part). Bibliotheque nationale de France, source
gallica.bnf.fr

been copied from another manuscript. These questions should undergo a new
and thorough investigation that will in particular have to consider the Plato codex
Vaticanus gr. 1 that has this same note.

To conclude our appraisal of the Philosophical Collection, let us take another
look at the most famous manuscript from the Collection, the Plato codex Parisi¬
nus gr. 1807, which is known to have found its way to the Latin west in the 14*
century and can most likely be identified with Petrarch’s Greek Plato manu¬
script.'*^ This codex is the second volume of a formerly complete edition of Plato
in manuscript form. It contains tetralogies VIII and IX as well as the pseudo-Pla¬
tonic treatises.'*'* There is strong evidence for it indeed being part of a complete

43 Oilier 1964; Saffrey 2007,14-23. According to Saffrey (2007, 5-23), the Parisinus gr. 1807 and
its twin, i.e. the first volume of the complete works of Plato, may have been brought to Armenia
in the ll* century and there used as the source for the Armenian translations of Plato, then to
Avignon in the W'** century and thence into the possession of Petrarch, a fascinating argument.

44 Erbse 1988, 258; Irigoin 1994a, 151f. (first published 1986); Boter 1989, 45-48, 112; Saffrey
2007, 3.

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

^AiQMp

y 01 ti^o YV*

*wn^ Tij y cfLfr ti Y «iy

r roi V ^Oi o r^ pUUaC

•“ tia^an *w ^tir^oo*

®t» Y ** * t fty.w

,V'’r^^<^V®>«>irrmTT)^Tr
*^i'^“V<V''>>'.T»<f oinva.

•■ >1'f00ifv:

r-am> t <!• o^r*^ »-Bn),n;"Su^lT

TO J„. ,^'ui^ S%'m V
to#t,v<-'vt«V^“^W’^^'^^‘’

Trt p^ . UV • V*»7^

Vii^i-rfy oTT*^ 17^*7

yfyim<? Iw trrrf^flV

— Y«V^l^ <r yC'^'^yrU'
ri4/0<0^^ V'^i® YJ®

ffp ti <r if V <rT''

Y n Y • Y ® T?^

® nrt) t tio 1 Y ® Y *1

<« t^et T U«7^i-»*4.
T-f

-.i

;^'/?"-,’T“*”

\-n-r V; irf »*
■_. .

—:^Vk-.-'

;.. 7 -- —-rm^/-^"

^^{•** *i ‘^'j“*’*•

■••/'). I

■\j->". /—.--;»\.s,

‘A/

-'•i* Y0

/"‘'■4 ■‘f’/'V vt<-T-i- ,

;^.'.v'•'’••T'r'*^*'^ 'v^*. ,j—T-
_T»'^ Ai''" '-r
’ }.\;i-,-7 >,-T»V,''»r^ ■T^~>-^\\-*y
'-^ r-i' '• f-^ *~'l'i~^f '.'"

Fig. 10: Parisinus gr. 1807, fol. 215 (lower part). Bibliotheque nationale de France, source gallica.
bnf.fr

edition in two volumes both in the arrangement of the Platonic dialogues accord¬
ing to the tetralogies as well as in the consecutive numbering of the dialogues or
their individual books. Notably, the first dialogue in the Parisinus, Kleitophon,
has the number k0 (= 29) underneath its title, followed by the books of the Polit-
eia, individually numbered from A (= 30) for the first book.'*^ We may, as did Erbse
and Irigoin, take this numbering, clearly intended to cover the whole, to attest
to the former existence of a first volume covering dialogues 1 through 28, i.e. the
tetralogies I through VII.''® Thus, we agree with Westerink''^ that the Philosophical
Collection must originally, i.e. upon its inception in Constantinople in the third
quarter of the 9**^ century, have contained another Plato codex, and there must
thus have been a complete edition in two volumes. While the first volume is now
lost, at least a descendant of it from several decades after has survived in the form
of a manuscript from the hand of the highly productive scribe Ephraim, preserved
as the Venice codex Marcianus 4, 1. This manuscript from the mid-10* century,
however, is probably not a direct copy of the lost first volume of our Plato from

45 Fol. 1 and fol. 3, cf. the online images of the Bibliotheque nationale de France (Gallica, see
references). Cf. fig. 1.

46 Erbse 1983, 258; Irigoin 1994a, 151f. (first published 1986).

47 Westerink 1986, LXXV; Westerink 1990,107.

Christian Brockmann

the third quarter of the 9* century, we must rather reconstruct an intermediate
stage in between.''® Evidence for this has been brought forth by Boter in his direct
comparison of the first books of Politeia in Parisinus gr. 1807 and Marcianus 4,
1. This comparison is possible because the Marcianus’ original textual content
from Ephraim’s hand does not conclude wdth tetralogy VII as the posited first
volume complementary to Parisinus gr. 1807, but continues with Kleitophon and
the beginning of Politeia through to book 3, 389d.'‘® Thus, the scribes of later
manuscripts deviated from the devision of the complete works after tetralogy VII.
And yet the Marcianus 4,1, as Erbse and Boter have pointed out, contains a clear
trace of a former split at the very location marked by the Parisinus gr. 1807 and
its hypothetical first volume counterpart; At the end of tetralogy VII, the Mar¬
cianus 4,1 has a note evidently referring to the arrangement in its predecessor:
“End of the first volume’’.^” Boter’s conclusion that the Marcianus is not a direct
descendant of the Parisinus where the first books of Politeia are concerned has
far-reaching implications. One may assume that the same would hold true for the
other parts that can no longer be compared to this manuscripts predecessors, i.e.
the Platonic dialogues from tetralogies I through VII, and that, as a consequence,
Ephraim did not have access to Parisinus gr. 1807 and its counterpart for his work
on the Plato manuscripts in the mid-10* century, but he rather used a no longer
extant copy of these two earlier manuscripts. With both the first volume of Plato
from the Philosophical Collection and the postulated reconstructed intermediate
copy of the entire Plato now lost, the Marcianus 4,1 must today be considered the
most important and oldest Plato manuscript in this branch of the transmission for
the first seven tetralogies of the Platonic dialogues, alongside the seven to eight
decades older codex vetustissimus Parisinus gr. 1807 for the remainder. Put more
simply: the Plato manuscript from Ephraim’s hand is the surviving representative
of an older manuscript that once formed part of the Philosophical Collection.

Since we have been considering the oldest Plato manuscripts in minuscule
script, two further important codices should be mentioned briefly in conclusion,
whose times of origin fall between those of Parisinus gr. 1807 and Marcianus 4,
1.1 refer to the manuscripts E.D. Clarke 39, i.e. the Oxford Bodleianus (Codex B,
the oldest manuscript of the first 24 dialogues, tetralogies I through VI), and the

48 Erbse 1983, 258; Irigoin 1994a, 156 (first published 1986); Boter 1989, 56, 111-118; a sample
from the codex to be found in Brockmann 1992, Abb. 39. On the scribe Ephraim cf. Prato 1982.

49 The part in Ephraim’s hand ends at this point, the missing books have been supplied from
other codices in the 15*^ century. Boter 1989, 55f.; Brockmann 1992, 34.

50 Erbse 1983, 258; Boter 1989,112.

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

Vaticanus gr. 1 (Codex 0, Nomoi etc.) from around 900 CE.^^ The details on the
Clarkianus are known from its preserved colophon which informs us that the
manuscript was written in the year 895 CE by the calligrapher John on behalf of
Arethas, Deacon of Patras (the later Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia)
Numerous scholia and marginal glosses are from Arethas’ own hand. There is no
agreement whether the same holds true for a group of marginalia in Vaticanus
gr. 1.^^ These short pointers on these latter manuscripts must suffice, as a more
thorough examination is outside the scope of this paper which is intended as a
first introduction to the bountiful field of research into the manuscripts of clas¬
sical texts from the Byzantine period, drawing on representative examples from
the earliest minuscule script codices. The manuscript work of the scholars and
scribes during the First Byzantine Humanism is rooted in the exegetical traditions
of Antiquity and Late Antiquity and anticipates that of generations to come. This
is evident in the manuscripts they wrote and annotated, which speak to their
efforts to provide structure to the abundance of texts and knowledge, and to adapt
and update it according to their philological, critical and exegetical approaches.
These manuscripts attest to these scribes’ and annotators’ scholarly creativity,
their effort, achievements and merits, and they can be used to retrace intellectual
circles and centres of joint work on the manuscripts. Their approach is character¬
istic for Greek and Byzantine manuscript culture, and was replicated in subse¬
quent periods, as is evident e.g. in the manuscript work by such eminent scholars
of the 13* and 14* centuries as Maximos Planudes, Georgios Pachymeres and
Demetrios Triklinios, or later, in the Renaissance, by Bessarion. Greek and Byz¬
antine manuscript culture is a rich field of research lending itself particularly to
comparative approaches in the context of manuscript research as a general field.

51 Facsimile of E. D. Clarke 39: Allen 1898-1899, online <http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8180/
luna/servlet/view/all/wbat/MS.+E.+D.+Clarke+39>. A sample from Vaticanus gr. 1: Follieri 1969,
No. 19.

52 Allen 1898-1899, V, fob 418v; Irigoin 1994a, 154 (first published 1986); Brockmann 1992, 37f.

53 Follieri 1969, No. 19: Wilson 1983a, 129; Perria 1990, 72-75; Brockmann 1992, 37-41.

Christian Brockmann

References

Online presentations of Greek manuscripts

Bibiioteca Medicea Laurenziana (Fiorence): Teca Digitate, http://teca.bmioniine.it/

Universitatsbibiiothek Heideiberg: Heidelberger historische Bestdnde - digital. http://digi.
ub.uni-heideiberg.de/digiit/cpgraec398, Cod. Pai. graec. 398

Bibiiotheque nationaie de France: Gallica bibliotheque numerique. http://gaiiica.bnf.fr/
ark:/121A8/btvlb8A192A8n/, Grec 1807

Bibiiotheque nationaie de France: Gallica bibliotheque numerique. http://gaiiica.bnf.fr/
ark:/121A8/btvlb8A192A92/, Grec 1853

Oxford, Bodieian Library http://bodiey30.bodiey.ox.ac.uk:8180/iuna/serviet/view/aii/what/
MS.-rE.-rD.-HCiarke+39

Osterreichische Nationaibibiiothek: images accessibie via

Universitat Fiamburg: Teuchos. Zentrum fur Handschriften- und Textforschung. http://www.
teuchos.uni-hamburg.de/, Vind. Phii. gr. 100

Books and papers

Aiien, Thomas W. (1898-1899), Plato. Codex Clarkianus 39 (Codices Graeci et Latini
photographice depicti lll-IV), Leiden: Lugduni Batavorum, A. W. Sijthoff.

Aiien, Thomas W. (1892), “Paiaeographica III. A group of ninth-century Greek manuscripts”, in:
Journal of Philology 21, 48-55.

Aristotle (1968), The Metaphysics, books l-IX, with an Engl, transl. by Hugh Tredennick, in:
Aristotle in Twenty-Three volumes, Vol. 17, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Atsalos, B./Tsironi, N. (eds.) (2008), Actes du VP Collogue International de Paleographie
Grecque (Drama, 21-27 septembre 2003), Athens: Hellenike Hetaireia Vivliodesias.

Aubenque, Pierre (ed.) (1979), Etudes sur la Metaphysique d’Aristote. Actes du VP Symposium
Aristotelicum, Paris: J. Vrin.

Boter, Gerard (1989), The Textual Tradition of Plato’s Republic (Mnemosyne Supplement 107),
Leiden/New York/Copenhagen/Cologne: Brill.

Beyers, Rita/Brams, Jozef et al. (eds.) (1999), La transmission des textes philosophiques et

scientifiques grecs au moyen age. Hommage a Fernand Bossier, Leuven: Leuven University
Press.

Brams, Jozef (1999), “Guillaume de Moerbeke et le commentaire de Simplicius sur la Physique”,
in: Beyers/Brams et al. 1999, 265-280.

Brockmann, Christian (1992), Die handschriftliche Uberlieferung von Platons Symposion (Serta
Graeca 2), Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Brockmann, Christian (2008): “Textkritische Uberlegungen zu loannikios als Schreiber von
Galen- und Aristotelestexten”, in: Atsalos/Tsironi 2008, Vol. I, 895-922; Vol. II, PI. 1-22.

Cavallo, Guglielmo (2005), “Da Alessandria a Costantinopoli? Qualche riflessione sulla
‘collezione filosofica’”, in: Segno e Testo 3, 249-263.

Cavallo, Guglielmo (2007), “Qualche riflessione sulla ‘Collezione filosofica’”, in: D’Ancona
2007,155-165.

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

D’Ancona, Cristina (ed.) (2007), The Libraries of the Neoplatonists (Philosophia Antiqua 107),
Leiden: Brill.

Devienne-Hecquet, Myriam (2000), “Les mains du Parisinus graecus 1853. Line nouvelle

collation des quatre premiers livres de la Metaphysique d’Aristote (folios 225v-2A7v) ”, in:
Scrittura e Civilta 2A, 103-171, Pi. 1-6.

Diels, Hermann (ed.) (1882a), Simpliciiin Aristotelis Physicorum libras quattuorpriores
commentaria (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 9), Berlin: G. Reimer.

Diels, Hermann (1882b), “Zur Textgeschichte der Aristotelischen Physik”, in: Abhandlungen der
Kbniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin, 3-A2.

Diels, Hermann (ed.) (1895), Simplicii in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quattuorposteriores
commentaria (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 10), Berlin: G. Reimer.

Diller, Aubrey (1964), “Petrarch’s Greek Codex of Plato”, in: Classical Philology 59, 270-272.

During, Ingemar (1966), Aristoteles. Darstellung und Interpretation seines Denkens, Heidelberg:
Winter.

Erbse, Hartmut (1983), Scholia Graeca in Homediliadem, 6: indices i-iVcontinens, Berlin/New
York: de Gruyter.

Erbse, Hartmut (1988), Scholia Graeca in Homed iliadem, 7: indicem Vnecnon addenda et
corrigenda continens, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Falluomini, Carla (1999), Der sogenannte Codex Carolinus von Wolfenbuttel (Codex Guelfer-
bytanus 64 Weissenburgensis). Mit besonderer Berucksichtigung dergotisch-lateinischen
Blatter (255, 256, 277, 280), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Follieri, Henrica (1969), Codices graeciBibliothecae Vaticanae selecti (Exempla scripturarum ...
IV), Rome: Bibliothecam Vaticanam.

Goulet, Richard (2007), “La conservation et la transmission des textes philosophiques grecs”,
in: D’Ancona 2007, 29-61.

De Gregorio, Giuseppe (2000), “Materiali vecchi e nuovi per uno studio della minuscola greca
fra VII e IX secolo”, in: Prato 2000, Vol. I, 83-151, Vol. Ill, Pi. 1-28.

Harlfinger, Dieter (1979), “Zur Uberlieferungsgeschichte der Metaphysik”, in: Aubenque 1979,
7-36.

Harlfinger, Dieter (ed.) (1990), Philophronema. Festschrift fiir Martin Sicherlzum 75.

Geburtstag. Von Textkritik bis Humanismusforschung (Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur
des Altertums 1,4), Paderborn/Munich/Vienna/Zurich: F. Schbningh.

Harlfinger, Dieter (2000), “Weitere Beispiele friihester Minuskel”, in: Prato 2000, Vol. I,
153-156, Vol. Ill, Pi. 1-18.

Harlfinger, Dieter / Reinsch, Diether (1970), “Die Aristotelica des Parisinus graecus 1741. Zur
Uberlieferungvon Poetik, Rhetorik, Physiognomonik, De signis, De ventorum situ”, in:
Philologus, 114, 28-50, Pi. I-IV.

Hoffmann, Philippe (2000), “Bibliotheques et formes du livre a la fin de I’antiquite. Le

temoignage de la litterature neoplatonicienne des V^ et VI® siecles”, in: Prato 2000, Vol. I,
601-632.

Hunger, Herbert (1989), Schreiben und Lesen in Byzanz. Die byzantinische Buchkultur,

Munchen: C.H. Beck.

Irigoin, Jean (1957), “L’Aristote de Vienne”, in: Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen ByzantinistikG,
5-10,1 Pi.

Irigoin, jean (1962), “Survie et renouveau de la litterature antique a Constantinople (IX® siecle)”,
in: Cahiers de Civilisation Medievale 5, 287-302. Reprint in: Irigoin 2003,197-232.

Christian Brockmann

Irigoin, Jean (1986), “Accidents materieis et critique des texts”, in: Revue d’Histoire des Textes
16,1-36, Pi. 1-3. Reprint in: Irigoin 2003, 80-131.

Irigoin, Jean (199Aa), “Deux traditions dissymetriques: Platon et Aristote”, in: Irigoin 199Ab,
1A9-169,171-190.

Irigoin, Jean (199Ab), Tradition et critique des texts grecs, Paris: Belles Lettres (first published
in: Annuaire du College de France 1985-1986 and 1986-1987).

Irigoin, Jean (2003), La tradition des texts grecs. Pour une critique historique, Paris: Belles
Lettres.

Kavrus-Hoffman, Nadezhda (2011), “Catalogue of Greek Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts
in Collections of the United States of America. PartV.3: Harvard University, The Houghton
Library and Andover-Harvard Theological Library”, in: Manuscripta 55,1-108.

Koch, Lutz (2011): Beschreibung des Manuskripts Vindobonensis Phil. gr. 100, <http://www.
teuchos.uni-hamburg.de> / Vind. Phil. gr. 100.

Lemerle, Paul (1971), Le premier humanisme byzantin. Notes et remarques sur enseignementet
culture a Byzance des origines auX‘ slide, Paris: Presses universiatires de France.

Moraux, Paul (1967), “Le Parisinus graecus 1853 (Ms. E) d’Aristote”, in: Scriptorium 21,17-Al,

PI.

Moraux, Paul/Harlfinger, Dieter/Reinsch, Diether/Wiesner, Jurgen (1976), Aristoteles Graecus.
Die griechischen Manuskripte des Aristoteles, Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, Bd. 1:
Alexandrien / London.

Odorico, Paolo (ed.) (2012), “La face cachee de la litterature byzantine. Le texte en tant que
message immediat.” Actes du colloque international, Paris, 5-7 juin 2008 (Dossiers
Byzantines 11), Paris 2012: Centre d’etudes byzantines, neo-helleniques et sud-est
europeennes.

Oehler, Klaus (1957), “Zacharias von Chalkedon Uber die Zeit”, \n: ByzantinischeZeitschriftSO,
31-38 (mit einer Facsimiletafel).

Oehler, Klaus (1962a), “Das Aristotelische Argument: Ein Mensch zeugt einen Menschen. Zum
Problem der Prinzipienfindung des Aristoteles”, in: Oehler 1962b, 231-288.

Oehler, Klaus (ed.) (1962b), Einsichten. Gerhard Kruger zum 60. Geburtstag, Frankfurt am Main.

Perria, Lidia (1990), “Arethaea II. Impaginazione e scrittura nei codici di Areta”, in: Rivista di
studi bizantini e neoellenici, 27, 55-87, PI. 1-A.

Perria, Lidia (1991), “Scrittura e ornamentazione nei codici della «collezione filosofica»”, in:
Rivista di studi bizantini e neoellenici, 28, A5-109, PI. 1-8.

Perria, Lidia (2000), “Alle origin! della minuscola libraria greca. Morfologia e stilizzazione”, in:
Prato 2000, Vol. 1,157-167, Vol. Ill, PI. 1-20.

Prato, Giancarlo (1982), “II monaco Efrem e la sua srittura”, \n: Scrittura e Civilta 6, 99-115,

PI. 1-8. Reprint in: Prato, Giancarlo (199A), Studi diPaleografia Greca, Spoleto, 13-29,

PI. 1-8.

Prato, Giancarlo (ed.) (2000), / manoscrittigreci tra riflessione e dibattito. Atti del VColloquio
Internazionale di Paleografia Greca (Cremona, A-10 ottobre 1998), Firenze: Gonnelli, 3 Vol.

Primavesi, Oliver (2006), “Empedokles in Florentiner Aristoteles-Scholien”, in: Zeitschrift fur
Papyrologie und Epigraphik 157, 27-AO.

Rashed, Marwan (2007a), “Nicolas d’Otrante, Guillaume de Moerbeke et la «Collection philos-
ophique»”, in: Rashed 2007b, 513-5A1, PI. 1-A.

Rashed, Marwan (2007b), L’heritage aristotelicien. Textes inedits de I’Antiquite, Paris: Belles
lettres.

Scribal Annotation as Evidence of Learning

Rashed, Marwan (2001), Die Uberlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De
generatione et corruptione (Serta Graeca 12), Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.

Rohde, Erwin (1880), “Sardinische Sage von den Neunschlafern”, in: Rheinisches Museum fur
Philologie, 35,157-168.

Ronconi, Fillppo (2003), La traslitterazione dei testigreci. Una ricerca tra paleografia e filologia
(Quaderni della Rivista di bizantinistica 7), Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto
Medioevo.

Ronconi, Filippo (2012), “La collection brisee. La face cachee de la «collection philosophique»:
Les milieux socioculturels”, in: Odorico 2012,137-166.

Ronconi, Filippo (2013), “La ‘collection philosophique’: un fantome historique”, in: Scriptorium
67,119-lAO.

Rosenqvist, Jan Olof (2007), Die byzantinische Literatur. Vom 6. jahrhundert bis zum Fall
Konstantinopels 1453, iibersetzt von Jan Olof Rosenqvist und Diether R. Reinsch, Berlin/
New York: de Gruyter.

Ross, William D. (ed.) (1936), Aristotle’s Physics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Saffrey, Henry D. (2007), “Retour sur le Parisinus graecus 1807, le manuscrit A de Platon”, in:
D’Ancona 2007, 3-28.

Turner, Eric G. (1977), The typology of the early codex, Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania
Press.

Vitelli, Hieronymus (ed.) (1887), loannis Philoponi in Aristotelis Physicorum libros tres priores
commentaria (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 16), Berlin: G. Reimer.

Vitelli, Hieronymus (ed.) (1888), ioannis Philoponi in Aristotelis Physicorum libros quinque
posteriores commentaria (Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 17), Berlin: G. Reimer.

Vuillemin-Diem, Gudrun/Rashed, Marwan (1997), “Burgundio de Pise et ses manuscrits
grecs d’Aristote: Laur. 87.7 et Laur. 81.18“, in: Recherches de Theologie etPhilosophie
medievales 6A, 136-186, pi. I-XII.

Wagner, Hans (1995^), Aristoteles. Physikvorlesung (Aristoteles. Werke in deutscher
Ubersetzung 11), Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

Westerink, Leendert G. (ed.) (1986), Damascius. Traite des premiers principes, Vol. 1, Paris:
Belles Lettres.

Westerink, Leendert G. (1990), “Das Ratsel des untergriindigen Neuplatonismus”, in: Harlfinger
1990,105-123.

Wilson, Nigel G. (1983a), Scholars of Byzantium, London: G. Duckworth.

Wilson, Nigel G. (1983b), “A Mysterious Byzantine Scriptorium: loannikios and his Colleagues”,
\n: Scrittura e Civilta 7,161-176, Pi. I-XIII.

Alessandro Bausi

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a
Manuscript Culture'

1 Introduction

Beginning with the remote past of the Aksumite kingdom (1®‘ to centuries CE,
an “African civilization of Late Antiquity”), the Ethiopian cultural area offers a
peculiar case study for the “manuscriptology” of ancient, medieval and modern
times. Historically a land of written civilizations since the beginning of the 1®*
millennium BCE, the areas nowadays corresponding to the highlands of Eritrea
and Northern Ethiopia witnessed the early introduction of the parchment roll
and codex, the latter having been strongly fostered by the Christianization of the
country in the 4* century CE. Taking advantage of the safe, dry climate of the
Abyssinian highlands, which makes chemical treatment quite unnecessary, man¬
uscript production has enjoyed a steady run of centuries, down to the present
day. Even now, parchment is still produced in several areas of the region. Mainly
an object of interest to historians, philologists and linguists as precious reposito¬
ries of written historical and linguistic data, the Ethiopian manuscripts written in
Ethiopic (especially literary texts), and to a lesser extent in Amharic (especially
documentary texts), Arabic and Harari (in Islamic contexts), have not yet become
a topic of codicological study within the frame of modern, so-called “manu¬
script archaeology”, nor have they been properly assessed from a comparative
or quantitative perspective. The estimated number of manuscripts ranges from a
minimum of 25,000 to 200,000, and the figure may even be higher if we take into
account the treasure of still unexplored and hardly accessible manuscripts pre¬
served in the Tegray monasteries, the “cradle” of Ethiopian civilization. Despite
the relatively recent age of most Ethiopic manuscripts (among which only two or
three Four Gospels books may predate the 12**' century), several archaic features
which Ethiopian culture has inherited from Mediterranean Late Antiquity make
codicological evaluation all the more desirable. Nowadays, however, observable

1 I would like to thank most sincerely the organizers of the Workshop in “Manuscriptology”, Oc¬
tober 8-11, 2007, University of Copenhagen, Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies,
for having offered me the unique opportunity to put forward a wide range of problems pertain¬
ing to a variety of disciplines. I would like to extend my thanks to Dmitry Bondarev, who has
so competently and patiently taken care of the editorial revision of this paper, as well as to the
anonymous reviewer for his equally patient and careful reading. Usual disclaims apply, i.e. the
final text is entirely my own responsibility.

Alessandro Bausi

features (or even features traceable to medieval times) cannot be mechanically
identified as archaic traditional practices. Ethiopian production of parchment
and codices must have been of primary importance even in ancient times, bearing
in mind that Islamic sources unanimously accredit the “invention of the codex”
to African people and that the Arabic term mushaf‘codex’ (almost entirely asso¬
ciated with the Qur’an codex) was borrowed from Ethiopic. Ink production is
an important material aspect of manuscript studies. Ethnographic observation
of surviving examples, as well as philological and linguistic data (i.e. study of
terminology) attest to the absence of metallic ink in Ethiopia, although it was
widely used both in other Christian and in Islamic provinces in course of the 1®^
millennium CE. Yet much is expected from reliable laboratory analyses. As far as
transmission is concerned, Ethiopic manuscripts reveal substantially “mechani¬
cal” textual traditions. This strongly clashes with both the purported predomi¬
nance of orality in Africa and (as an assumed consequence) copyists’ arbitrari¬
ness in transmitting texts. Documentary texts may present peculiar transmission
phenomenology. Yet, copyists’ actual attitude to the transmitted texts can only
be ascertained through manuscript collation, which has not yet been extensively
done for most printed editions of Ethiopic texts. I vdll present a panoramic view
of the state of the research on Ethiopic manuscripts, and then a particular case
study of “manuscript philology” that focuses on “gaps”, “adjustments” and “nor¬
malization” in the chain of traditional textual transmission.

2 A long written tradition

The peculiarities of manuscript production in Ethiopian culture find their origin
in the very late introduction of printing, whose extensive use does not predate the
20‘*' century. The existence of a writing tradition three millennia old is no doubt
the most paradoxical and exotic aspect of Ethiopian civilization (historically
understood) in the context of Africa south of the Sahara.^ Geographically included
in, though not corresponding to the political boundaries of the present indepen¬
dent states of Eritrea and Ethiopia, the geographic area of Ethiopian civilization
is one of extreme linguistic and anthropological variety. The long continuity of
the South-Semitic written tradition has made it the subject of linguistic, philo¬
logical and historical studies which have been relatively consistently focused on
long-lasting cultural features, from the origins of the civilization through ancient

2 Cf. Munro-Hay 1991; Brakmann 1994; for an updated and comprehensive presentation of all
the main topics in Ethiopian Studies, see EAe.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

and medieval times to the premodern and - in some respects - the modern ages.
The earliest evidence of vyriting in the area is represented by monumental and
cursive Sabaic inscriptions which date to the mid-l®‘ millennium BCE (probably
the 8*^-7**^ centuries). These bear witness to the strong influence of the South
Arabian civilization then flourishing on the opposite side of the Red Sea, which
probably settled on African soil over an earlier South-Semitic substratum also of
Asiatic origin.^

Mentioned in various sources since the 1®* century CE, the “Kingdom of
Aksum” - named after its capital city in Northern Ethiopia, in present-day Tegray -
reached its peak of power in the period from the 3"^ to the 7*^ centuries CE, after
centuries of development. It represented - in ways not yet really clear - a well
rooted Semitic civilization, increasingly penetrated by the Greek culture circulat¬
ing along the shores of the Red Sea since the Hellenistic age. Near-Eastern South-
Arabian, African and Asiatic components all influenced it, alone, mutually, and in
combination. Starting from the 3”^ century at least, evidence of inscriptions (until
the S*** century) and coins legends testifies to the use of Greek as well as Ethiopic
(also known as Ancient Ethiopic or Ge‘ez).'‘ A South-Semitic language easily dis¬
tinguished from South-Arabian (whose alphabet - not the language - was occa¬
sionally used in royal inscriptions), Ethiopic was destined to be the only vnritten
language of the Kingdom for a millennium and a half, well after it had ceased to be
spoken or had become a different language, Tigrinya (probably around the turn of
the 10*^ century). As will be shown, the language change had its “manuscriptologi-
cal” consequences for the transmission of Ethiopic texts.

Conversion to Christianity, introduced in Ethiopia in the 4* century CE and, as
Cosmas Indicopleustes attests in his Topographia Christiana, widely established
throughout the East by the first half of the 6*, had a major and lasting impact
on Ethiopian culture. The Ethiopian Church, whose official language was always
Ethiopic, remained subordinate to the Egyptian Church of Alexandria, whose offi¬
cial language was initially Greek, later Coptic and finally Arabic, almost without
interruption until the 20* century.^ Aksum reached the height of its glory as the
main military partner of the Byzantine Empire in the early 6* century, when South
Arabia had also been under Aksumite control for some decades. The emergence
of Islam in the 7* century followed by the occupation of the African coasts in the
8*, dramatically put an end to Ethiopia’s central role in the trade routes along the

3 Cf. Marrassini 2003b. For inscriptions, cf. Bernand / Drewes / Schneider 1991; Bernand 2000;
cf. also Avanzini 2007a; Muller 2007; and Marrassini 2014.

4 Cf. Fiaccadori 2007a; Avanzini 2007b; Frantsouzoff 2007; Fiaccadori 2007b.

5 The Ethiopian Church became completely autocephalous only in 1959 with Patriarch Baselyos,
cf. Chernetsov 2005.

Alessandro Bausi

Red Sea, as well as to its intense relationship with other areas of Christian culture.
In the following centuries, the core of the Christian kingdom moved progressively
southwards from Aksum to Lalibala, the rockhewn capital of the Zag'^'e dynasty in
the 12*** century, until it reached Amharic-speaking areas, where it has been mainly
based since the 13*** century. At the southern limits of the kingdom, Addis Ababa,
the present capital of Ethiopia, was founded at the end of the 19* century. Yet,
the heritage of Aksum deeply marked the history of the whole Ethiopian area. The
Christian kingdom played a hegemonic role in the region until the 20*** century.

It is surprising, however, that mashaf, the most general Ge‘ez term for ‘manu¬
script, book, writing’ in all its meanings, was borrowed into Arabic, where mushaf
became a technical term for a Qur’anic codex. This seems to imply that Ethio¬
pian production of parchment and codices must have been of major importance
even in pre-Islamic and early Islamic times, and that the Arabs, “people of the
Book” par excellence, adopted the use of the codex from the Ethiopians, who had
received it in turn from the late antique Near-Eastern and Mediterranean world.
This hypothesis is confirmed by a relatively ancient Islamic tradition attested in
the middle of the 9*** century by Abu ‘Uthman al-Jahiz in his Fakhr al-suddn ‘aid
l-biddn (‘The boasts of the Blacks over the Whites’).®

As an “African civilization of Late Antiquity”, the Aksumite kingdom partici¬
pated intensively in cultural movements and exchanges between the Near East,
the Mediterranean and the Red Sea during the first Christian centuries, right
down to the 7* century. More than that, modern Ethiopia has faithfully retained
some features of this cultural environment: be they religious practices, literary
texts, artistic motifs or elements of material culture. The same happened well
after the medieval age in other areas of the Christian Orient, of which Ethiopia
has been an integral, though remote component for centuries. Yet, due to its long
isolation, it is likely that archaic elements are more easily to be found in Ethiopia
than in other countries.^

In the script used in the earliest Ethiopic monumental inscriptions, round
letter-forms proper of soft text-carriers are more prevalent than in the compa¬
rable South-Arabian inscriptions. This seems to demonstrate that manuscript
writing, probably on parchment rolls and codices - there is no evidence for the

6 Cf. Uhlig / Bausi 2007a, 739b-, Bausi 2008a, 521, n. 44.

7 Cf. Marrassini 1999, 238.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

use of papyrus in Ethiopia® - was introduced in the 3'''^ century at the latest.®
The ancient and deeply rooted practice of parchment manuscript production was
certainly favoured by the dry, healthy climate of the Abyssinian highlands which
makes use of chemical treatment rather unnecessary. Parchment has been the
main medium for transmitting written knowledge (including documentary texts)
for over 1500 years, up until the 20* century. In some areas it remains in use to
the present day.^” Since the country’s Christianisation, Ethiopic manuscripts have
been responsible for the diffusion and transmission of a literary corpus translated
from Greek into Ethiopic which is instrumental to Christian practice: including
the Bible with several Apocrypha and various patristic writings (theological,
liturgical, hagiographic, homiletic, and monastic works). This Aksumite corpus
survived in the course of time through complex processes of transmission. Some
parts survived through copying, while other texts (starting in the 13* century)
came down to us as translations from Arabic into Ethiopic. All these were trans¬
mitted on parchment. Interestingly, from the 10* century onwards copyists prob¬
ably did not speak the language of the texts that they were copying.

During the obscure and scarcely documented period between the Aksumite
(the 4* to 7* centuries and beyond) and post-Aksumite ages (which began in the
12* century), written culture was affected by traumatic events with a consequent
loss of whole corpora of texts. Besides material factors, this was probably due to
changes in linguistic standards. That is, translated texts had become virtually
unintelligible even to the clergy. The combined effects of linguistic change on
the one hand, and both decline in literary culture and long textual transmission
by copying on the other, led to extensive textual corruption. In consequence,
ancient Aksumite translations were either superficially revised or transformed
by complex and unexpected processes (what I will briefly present below is evi¬
dence of one such case), abandoned or even totally replaced with newer ones.^^
No wonder that the traditional teaching transmitted in ecclesiastical schools
has sometimes no understanding of ancient texts or of the practices mentioned
therein, the memory of which has definitely vanished. This past - in a way, a
“classical past” rooted in the Aksumite period - can be recovered only if it is com-

8 The very recent description of the Four Gospels Books of Abba Garima by its restorer, however,
includes the important remark that the binding of the first of the two manuscripts bears traces
of deteriorated papyrus: and this, as far as we know, would be the first evidence for papyrus as
book material in Ethiopia, cf. Capon 2008, 7; Mercier 2009,112; Bausi 2011a.

9 Cf. Cohen 1931, 131; on palaeography, cf. also Grohmann 1915; Drewes 1955; Schneider 1983;
1986; 1995; Uhlig 1988; 1990; Getatchew Haile 1996; Lusini 1999a; Bausi 2004a; 2008a; Boll 2007;
Uhlig / Bausi 2007b. Cf. also Bausi / Nosnitsin 2014.

10 Cf. Mellors / Parsons 2002a; 2002b; 2003.

11 Cf. Bausi 2005a; 2005b; 2006a; 2006b; 2006c.

Alessandro Bausi

pared with its late antique original context; also, it is better understood if con¬
trasted against other ancient Christian and Christian oriental traditions - for both
of which, in turn, the contribution of Ethiopian studies may be of extraordinary
importance.

It would not make sense to study Ethiopic manuscripts without consider¬
ing the cultural context in which they originated: namely that of Late Antiquity
and the Christian East. The myth that Ethiopian Studies is a self-sufficient field
and/or a minor part of African Studies has often helped to obscure one essential
truth: that the mere existence of its manuscript tradition clearly shows that Ethio¬
pian civilization was deeply influenced by Mediterranean, Byzantine and Near
Eastern cultures. The preservation of ancient techniques and their application
by modern copyists, however, have attracted the attention of only a few schol¬
ars.Notwithstanding some recent initiatives, Ethiopic manuscripts have not yet
become a subject of codicological study within the frame of modern “manuscript
archaeology”,^^ nor have they been properly examined from a comparative or
quantitative (chronological distribution, format, size typologies etc.) perspective.

Present-day manuscript production practices, even those showing features
traceable to medieval times, do not have any absolute or paradigmatic value, nor
can they be mechanically interpreted as reflecting ancient traditional practices.
This does not, however, mean that no archaic features were retained in manu¬
script production and other aspects of Ethiopian social and religious life. Man¬
uscript production simply underwent its own - mainly internal - development
over time. This can be illustrated by the following examples.

It is commonly said that one and the same person took care of all phases
of manuscript production, from parchment preparation to writing and binding;
something observed nowadays, and still customarily taught in a few surviving
traditional schools. However, we have evidence for other modes of book-produc¬
tion as well. The Ga'az term berhanna, probably a pseudo-etymological spelling,
as in Amharic, for the original berdnnd, specifically means ‘parchment’.^'' The
colophon of a manuscript in Pistoia’s Biblioteca Forteguerriana, Martini etiop. 5,
fol. 195rb, which dates to the first half of the 15* century (1437/1438) during the
reign of King Zar’a Ya‘qob (1434-1468) and belongs to a series of monumental
Biblical “Octateuchs” (i.e. Genesis, Leviticus, Exodus, Numbers, Deutoronomy,

12 A short documentary has also been produced in 2001, cf. Sobania / Silverman 2000.

13 Cf. Maniaci 2002; Agati 2003; 2009; Gehin 2005. Cf. now Balicka-Witakowska / Bausi / Bosc-
Tiesse / Nosnitsin 2014.

14 The term is etymologically unclear: either from *brh ‘be light, be clear’, or (more likely) from
Latin memhrana, through Greek pcpppdva.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

Joshua, Judges and Ruth) of large size (195 foil., 2 cols., 465 x 350 mm), offers an
interesting piece of evidence. The colophon reads:^

The Book of Ruth from the Octateuch has been finished. And this book was written in the
ninetieth year of Mercy: it was started in the month of Yakkatit and finished in the month
of Nahasi, [while] our King [was] Zar’a Ya‘qob and our Metropolitan ’abba Bartalomewos.
It was Our Father Gabramaryam who had it written: let God write his name on the golden
pillar by a bejewelled pen in the Heavenly Jerusalem with all his [spiritual] sons for ever
and ever. Amen. Malka Sedeq wrote the Book of Numbers, Deutoronomy and Joshua, while
I myself, Pawlos, wrote the other [books]. If we added or omitted anything, either wittingly
or not, forgive and bless us for ever and ever. Amen. And bless the makers of parchment,
because they laboured much.

The colophon demonstrates that in this case the ‘parchment makers’, sarahta
beranna, were definitely distinct from the copyists, who are mentioned by their
names, IVialka Sedek and Pawlos. JVloreover, the making of the book was “team
work”, because at least two copyists took part in it. They probably worked at the
same time, as can be guessed from a codicological analysis of the manuscript;
IVialka Sedeq’s portion of the text (Numbers, Deutoronomy and Joshua, on foil.
93-173) is written on a separate set of quires and the whole work took no longer
than six/seven months. On the other hand, Pawlos is mentioned again in a caption
(on fol. 5v) as the artist of an illustration that shows IVloses with Joshua and Aron
receiving the Tablets of the Law: although we do not know how frequent such
illuminations were at the time, copyist-painters are not at all frequent today.^*’
Another example of manuscript production by “team” is the long subscriptio
(fol. 574v), with a colophon to a second, even more monumental manuscript (576
foil., 3 cols., mm 489 x 390) preserved in the monastery of Dabra Bizan (Eritrea).
The manuscript, which contains the so-called 81 Canonical Books (the whole
Bible plus apocryphal and canonico-liturgical writings) is dated to the reign of
King ’Eskender (1478-1494) at the end of the 15* century (1491/1492). As the abbot
Tawalda IViadhen, who donated the manuscript to the monastic community,
declares in the long and elaborated subscriptio:^^

We have entrusted this book to the Lord, to Mary his mother and to aU the angelical and
human ranks, to all our forefathers, living and dead, and to this church, so that they should
preserve it. May this word of the Lord preserve this church and this community from the
burning of fire, from earthquake, from the assault of the enemy, from the stirring of wind.

15 Cf. Fiaccadori 1993, 162-163; description and bibliography also in Lusini 2002, 161-163, with
erroneous shelfmark «Ms. Martini etiop. n. 2 (= Zanutto n. 5)»; cf. also Bausi 2008a, 522, n. 49.

16 Cf. Uhlig / Bausi 2007a, 739b: Bausi 2008a, 522.

17 Cf. Bausi 1997, 34-39, manuscript no. 6; the quotation on p. 36 [tr.[, and p. 39 [text].

Alessandro Bausi

from lightning and thunder, and from every fraudulence of the enemy. As to this book, it
is a source of pride, and [no similar one] is found anywhere else. Preserve it carefully and
respectfully.

The statement of the abbot makes it clear that the completion of this book was
important for two reasons: its monumentality visibly represented the richness
and power of the community as well as its devotion and loyalty to the religious
faith. In this respect, the presence in the manuscript of the apocryphal and
canonico-liturgical writings besides the Bible has its own specific importance. By
virtue of having realised the book, the abbot feels entitled to ask for a particular
intercession in favour of the monastery. In this case, the manuscript displays the
patronage of the monastic community and attests to its ideological identity.

The third case shows how dogmatic, monastic, and political controversies
are sometimes reflected in centuries-old manuscripts. At the same monastery of
Dabra Bizan, a wonderful 15*^-century Mashafa berhan (‘Book of the light’) has
been preserved. The work is a compilation of doctrinal and historical materials
written on the initiative of King Zar’a Ya‘qob and primarily intended to settle the
violent monastic disputes in the course of which Dabra Bizan sided with the party
opposed to the King.^® A note in the manuscript states that the codex was donated
by the King to Petros, the community’s future abbot, on the occasion of his visit to
the royal court in Sewa in the year 1457/1458 (fol. 271va):^®

This book is the Mashafa berhan donated by our King Zar’a Ya'qob to Dabra Bizan when Our
Father Petros descended from the land of Sewa, having taken this hook in the year of Mercy
110. May he write in the Heavenly Jerusalem the name of Our Father Petros, shepherd of the
flock. For ever. Amen.

As we have it now, some specific portions of the historical narrative in the work (a
sort of “official” history of the recent past) have however been censored, having
been washed away and erased from the codex, no doubt on the initiative of some
rebellious monks.

The passion of the Ethiopian saints for books is a hagiographic common¬
place, and certainly reflects their holy devotion to the Holy Scriptures and to the
books of Divinity.^” Some of them, however, seem to go slightly further, being
animated by a special bibliophily: this is the case of some saints of the house of

18 Cf. Getatchew Haile 2003; 2013; Derat 2005a.

19 Cf. Bausi 1997, 25-34, manuscript no. 6, figs. 1-8; the note on p. 28 [tr.j, and p. 33.

20 Cf. Bausi 1992, 41-46; for Dabra Hayq ’Estifanos - on which, cf. also Derat 2005b - cf. Bausi
2006b, 538.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

’Ewostatewos (ca. 1273-1352),^^ but also of Basalota Mika’el, a 14*-century saint^^
who, according to his Gadl (‘[Spiritual] Combat’), wandered among monasteries
in search for books:

First he arrived at Makana Dammo and remained there reading the books of the New and
of the Old [Testament]; he also studied their interpretation with intellectual eagerness:
so that the skin of his tongue fell off, like the sheath of a knife; but he did not abandon
his reading because of this. Then he departed and arrived at the house of ’abba Mata‘: he
received the benediction of the blessed Libanos and remained a few days being vigilant in
the reading of books. Then he left and arrived at Makana Qefrya, and from there he left to
Makana Q^a’at, from Makana Q™a’at to Makana Ba’altabehat, from Makana Ba’altabehat to
Makana Maqale, from Makana Maqale to Makana Gefe by Gabra Nazrawi, his beloved. And
wherever he arrived, he built a cell for himself and stayed up day and night reading the
Scriptures: he supplicated the Lord in fasts and in prayer so that He might reveal the secret
of their mystery. (Conti Rossini 1905,19.22-20.3 [text], 17.26-18.5 [tr.].)

3 Some data and the status quaestionis

3.1 Panorama

Beginning from the second half of the 20* century, modern research has clearly
distinguished various branches within the general field of manuscript studies,
each with its own methodology and scope, based upon the fundamental distinc¬
tion between the text and the bearer of the text.^^ Codicology or “manuscript
archaeology” studies hand-written books as artefacts with specific reference to
their material constituents and techniques of production. Manuscript illumina¬
tions and drawings are the subject of art history. Palaeography deals with the
peculiarities of writing and its general development and dating (which, histori¬
cally, was always the primary aim of palaeography), but also with the general
“act of writing” in all its contexts and reflexes. Textual criticism or philology has
refined its methods in the search for reliable criteria with which to establish the
original readings of texts, taking advantage of recent developments in other fields
attested, for example, by the emergence of such specific sub-disciplines as “codi-

21 Cf. Fiaccadori 2005a; 2005b; Lusini 2004, 230-237; Tedros Abraha 2009,188-189.

22 Cf. Samuel Wolde Yohannes / Nosnitsin 2003 (the reference on p. 494h to manuscript EMML
no. 1843 is to be corrected into EMML no. 2134).

23 The assertion that these areas of research should be subsumed in a single discipline of “man¬
uscript studies”, though not unheard-of, certainly has a radical edge today, and needs justifica¬
tion.

Alessandro Bausi

cological stemmatics” or “material philology”.^'' These new fields of research
are concerned with establishing the links between manuscripts and the texts
they transmit. They also trace the history of each single manuscript, its material
structure and/or the influence particular copies may have exerted within a single
textual tradition. So far these recent disciplinary subdivisions have seldom been
applied in Ethiopian manuscripts studies.

3.2 Number of manuscripts

Among basic issues that still need definitive assessment is the question of the
total number of manuscripts, both inside and outside Ethiopia and Eritrea. The
exact number of Ethiopic manuscripts in the Ethio-Eritrean region is not known.
The estimated figure of ca. 200,000 (excluding scrolls) seems realistic and cannot
be dramatically reduced if one considers the minimum number of manuscripts
necessary for every church to be able to carry on its normal religious and litur¬
gical practice (the estimated number of parishes ranges from at least 13,000 to
32,350). Large manuscript collections are often preserved in monastic libraries,
especially in the still understudied Tegray churches and monasteries that formed
the “cradle” of Christian civilization in Ethiopia.^^

The number of manuscripts abroad may run to several thousand. Most are
catalogued. The four biggest collections in Europe are the Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana (Citta del Vaticano), the Bibliotheque nationale de France (Paris), the
British Library (London), and the Staatsbibliothek PreuBischer Kulturbesitz, Ori-
entabteilung (Berlin). The Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (also the first to have
been catalogued) has well over one thousand (about 1,082) catalogued manu¬
scripts plus a number of still uncatalogued collections including many items
each. The Bibliotheque nationale de France has over one thousand manuscripts
and scrolls. The British Library (the first to have been catalogued according to
modern standards in 1848) has at present at least 624 manuscripts. The Berlin

24 Cf., e.g., Cavallo 1998; Gongalves 1998; Zufferey 1998; Pecere 1998; Del Corso 2007. For one of
the many essays on the “digital philology” cf. Ciula / Stella 2007. Cf. also Bausi et al. 2014.

25 Cf. for details Bausi 1996,14-23; 2004a, 8; 2008a, 510-515; 2009a; 2011b; Bausi / Uhlig 2007a;
cf. also the important research project “Mazgaba Saalat”, edited by Michael Gervers and Ewa
Balicka-Witakowska, with an immense database at <http://ethiopia.deeds.utoronto.ca/>; and
now the even more important projects Ethio-SPaRe led by Denis Nosnitsin <http://wwwl.uni-
hamburg.de/ethiostudies/ethiospare.pdf> and “The Ethiopian Manuscript Imaging Project,
Hill Museum and Manuscript Library, Saint John’s University, Collegeville, MN”, led by Steve
Delamarter <http://www.hmml.org/Vivarium/sgd.htm>. By the Ethio-SPaRe project, see now
Nosnitsin 2013a; 2013b.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

Library preserves 328 manuscripts and an important microfilm collection of 182
items. As far as microfilms are concerned, the collection of the Ethiopian Manu¬
script Microfilm Library (Addis Ababa and Collegeville, Minnesota) with its 9,238
manuscripts is the most important; moreover, the first 5,000 items have been
catalogued in printed form, with other manuscripts being described in an online
catalogue.

3.3 Manuscript cataloguing

To discuss methods and the state of the art in Ethiopic manuscript cataloguing
would require a paper by itself.^'’ A full list of collections and catalogues, with
minor omissions, has been compiled by Robert Beylot and Maxima Rodinson
in 1995; an updated online version - not without some inconvenient elements,
misunderstandings and errors - was prepared by a team of French researchers
(Anai's Wion, Marie-Laure Derat, Claire Bosc-Tiesse) in 2006.^^ For information
on a number of collections which can be considered of minor importance only
from the point of view of the number of manuscripts, old repertories (such as the
wonderful bibliography by Silvio Zanutto of 1935) are still useful.^® Catalogues
usually reflect only a certain angle on manuscript studies. Some put more weight
on philological aspects, such as description of the text, identification of its ante¬
cedents and parallels, and the manuscript’s place in its textual tradition, while
others focus on material or “archaeological” aspects of the manuscripts. From
this perspective, a rather recent catalogue of 23 manuscripts deposited in public
and private collections of the United Kingdom should be used with circumspec¬
tion; though seemingly “progressive” and up to date in its detailed description
of material aspects, it lacks similarly detailed description of the texts and has
insufficient references to parallel versions and general repertories, vdth the con-

26 I devoted one to the subject on the occasion of an international workshop in Montepulciano
(Siena) on the manuscripts of the Mediterranean area (Bausi 2007a, with updated bibliography);
add the descriptions of two manuscripts by Gianfrancesco Lusini, in Scialabba / Palma 2007,
24-25 (manuscript no. 1, Lentini [Siracusa], Parrocchia di Sant’Alfio e Santa Maria La Cava, Bib-
lioteca “Don Sebastiano Castro”, manuscript inv. 3373), and 72-73 (manuscript no. 26, Siracusa,
Biblioteca Alagoniana, manuscript cod. XXlll); and the list of nine manuscripts in Bucarelli 2007,
20-41 (manuscripts nos. 25-33).

27 Cf. Beylot / Rodinson 1995; Wion / Derat / Bosc-Tiesse 2006a; 2006b, 2008; cf. Bausi 2007a,
100-104.

28 Cf. Simon 1931-1932; and esp. Zanutto 1932.

Alessandro Bausi

sequence that the description does not constitute a good basis for philological
research.^®

3.4 Oldest manuscripts

Although the introduction of Christianity in Aksum certainly implies early dif¬
fusion of manuscripts, at least for the purpose of religious services and liturgi¬
cal practice, none dating to that period are as yet known. The oldest preserved
manuscripts which can confidently be dated go back to the early 13'*^ century, but
manuscripts survive in considerable quantity only from the 17* century. Chris¬
tian tradition tends to attribute the scarcity of manuscripts predating the 17*
century to the destruction of Christian heritage brought about in the first half
of the 16* by the Islamic leader Ahmad b. Ibrahim al-Gazi. The wars with Islam
must seriously have affected the survival of Christian manuscripts, although the
extent of the damage cannot be determined with any certainty. The intentional
destruction or substitution of texts, the custom of burying manuscripts together
with their owners, and poor preservation conditions in monastic libraries, have
also been adduced to explain the scarcity of ancient manuscripts. The conflict
with the Jesuits in the 17* century and the full restoration of traditional cult in
the Gondarine kingdom may also have occasioned a substantial revival of manu¬
script production.^”

Three Four Gospels books from ’Enda Abba Garima (I, II and III) are consid¬
ered to be the oldest known Ethiopian manuscripts. Their dating, however, is still
uncertain and a matter of discussion; it ranges, according to different scholars,
from the 7* or even the 6* centuries up to the 14*, vdth the earliest dating (i.e.
ante the 7* century) supported by the style of the illuminations (Canon tables)
and radiocarbon dating.^^ While in several cases internal evidence is provided by
a colophon or a subscriptio, in this, as well as in other cases, the manuscripts can

29 Cf. Delamarter / Demeke Berhane 2007; cf. Bausi 2007a, 104-106. Definitely much better, the
new catalogue by Getatchew Haile / Melaku Terete / Rundell / Daniel Alemu / Delamarter 2009
and Delamarter / Melaku Terete 2009.

30 Cf. Uhlig / Bausi 2007a, 739h-740h; Bausi 2008a, 518-520. The question whether more recent
destructions - such as those caused by the Italian invasion and occupation in 1935-1941 - might
also have played an important role has, curiously enough, remained totally unattended so far.

31 Cf. Leroy 1960; 1968; Macomber 1979, 1-11; Davies 1987, 293-297; Zuurmond 1989, part II, 44-
52; 2001; Heldman 1993,129-130, nos. 52-53; Mercier 2000,36-45, with the result, respectively, of
430-650 CE and 330-540 CE for the two analysed parchment fragments; Bausi 2004b; Wechsler
2005, ix-xi; Bausi 2005d; 2008a, 549-551; Capon 2008; Mercier 2009; Bausi 2011a. The recent
conference “Ethiopia and the Mediterranean World in Late Antiquity: The Garima Gospels in the

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

unfortunately be dated only on the basis of palaeographic evidence, for which,
however, only uncertain epigraphic parallels or art-historical features of the illus¬
trations are available.

3.5 Codicology

In the absence of a specialist monograph devoted to the codicology of Ethiopic
manuscripts apart from a short, but useful booklet published by Sergew Hable
Selassie (1981), Ethiopian codicology is still in its infancy.Two basic types of
Ethiopic manuscripts are traditionally distinguished according to overall format,
both of which are prepared on parchment according to fixed traditional pro¬
cedures; a) the scroll, usually not calligraphic and almost exclusively used for
magical texts and for paintings but not (as in Jewish culture) for sacred texts or
large works, and b) the codex, usually with wooden binding and leather cover.
Palimpsests are rarely attested; they are obtained more often by washing off the
ink than by erasing. Manuscripts are almost without exception on parchment.
Paper manuscripts are rare and very recent (from the end of the 19**^ or the 20*
century), apart from exceptions easily explained by the context of production.
Collections of Ethiopic manuscripts copied by Ethiopian copyists for European
scholars sometimes have many European paper manuscripts. Quires are normally
composed of four bifolia in older manuscripts; fascicles of five bifolia seem to
have prevailed since the 17*/18* centuries. “Gregory’s rule” (“flesh side on flesh
side and hair side on hair side”) is consistently observed. Although dimensions
and other metric data of the manuscripts (number of columns, size of the writing,
width of the margins etc.) should be studied as components of the general mise
en page, no statistical study is yet available for Ethiopic manuscripts, apart from
very limited sample studies.^^ On this provisional basis, one can say that the
dimensions of the manuscripts range from 10-12 cm to more than 40 to 50 cm
in height. The most ancient manuscripts usually organize text in two columns;
from the 16* century the three-column model tends to become frequent and later
on prevails in large format manuscripts. As a rule, the Psalter is copied in one

Context”, held in Oxford on 2-3 November 2013 seems to have provided further elements sup¬
porting the early date of the manuscripts 1 and ill.

32 Cf. Sergew Hable Selassie 1981; Balicka-Witakowska 2007, 749a-752a; Bausi 2008a, 525-546.
Cf. now the book, in Amharic, by Faqada Sellase Tafarra 2010; Nosnitsin 2012; and most of all
Balicka-Witakowska / Bausi / Bosc-Tiesse / Nosnitsin 2014.

33 Cf. Delamarter / Demeke Berhane 2007, ix-x, and especially Getatchew Haile / Melaku Terefe /
Rundell / Daniel Alemu / Delamarter 2009, xxviii-xxx, where some useful statistics on the fas¬
cicular structure of the described manuscripts are given.

Alessandro Bausi

single column. Guidelines are not drawn with ink but rather with a dry point by
scoring the writing surface. Paragraph marks are very simple until the end of
the 14* century when they become more elaborate. Geometrical ornaments and
interlacing {harag) also developed from the 14* century; this kind of ornamenta¬
tion enjoyed a special revival in imperial scriptoria in the 20* century.^'' Black (or
dark brown, typical of the earliest manuscripts) and red inks are very common;
other colours are also used, especially in ornaments; one special case of “nega¬
tive” writing (black ink is erased to obtain “white” writing using the colour of
the parchment) is attested in the colophon of an Octateuch, Bible House Library,
Ethiop. 1, 284r.^^ One prevalent Ethiopian binding techniques seems to be of a
specific type, technically termed “chain-sewing with two threads”. Manuscripts
are usually provided with wooden covers, very often covered with ornamented
leather according to traditional styles.^®

A particular question concerning the material aspects of the Ethiopian man¬
uscript book is that of ink production. Although there has been no extensive
laboratory analysis, present-day practice as observed by ethnographers, as well
as philological and linguistic data (i.e. study of terminology) would attest that
metallic ink was not common in Ethiopia, whereas it began to be used and tended
to prevail both in Islamic and in Christian areas of the Mediterranean world in
the course of the millennium CE. Aksumite Ethiopic mdya hemmat (‘ink’)
literally means ‘water of soot’, and the earliest documentary text ever found, a
feudal deed issued by King Lalibala and dating to 1205/1209, mentions the office
of qdla hemmat, probably (if hemmat stands for hemmat) ‘voice (or; word) of the
soot’, with reference to his scribes or secretaries who read and recorded texts.^^
If analyses and further research will confirm these preliminary results, Ethiopian
manuscript production could have preserved late antique practice through to the
present day.^®

34 Cf. Balicka-Witakowska 2005.

35 Cf. Cowley 1982, 71; at present, the manuscripts are preserved in the Cambridge University
Library, cf. Beylot / Rodinson 2005, 46-47.

36 Cf. Bozzacchi 1996; Szirmai 1999, 45-50; Bartelt / Hammerschmidt 1976; Proverbio / Fiacca-
dori 2004, 666, n. 3; Balicka-Witakowska 2007; Bausi 2008a, 543-546.

37 Cf. Conti Rossini 1901, 187.16, doc. no. 6; 2008a, 524; additional references in Bausi 2005c;
2010e.

38 Cf. a first attempt by Wion 2004,107, that confirms that Ethiopian black ink is carbon-based.
On the occasion of the workshop “Digital Approaches to Manuscript Studies”, Hamburg, July
23 ri- 24 'h 2010, in the frame of the European Science Foundation Research Networking Pro¬
gramme “Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies” (COMSt), Steve Delamarter presented the
paper “X-Ray spectroscopy and a Fourier Transform-infrared analysis of Ethiopian Inks”, pro¬
viding laboratory evidence for the use of iron gall ink in an 18'*'-century Ethiopian manuscript.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

3.6 Palaeography

Apart from the study of writing in the strict sense,^® the modern concept of pal¬
aeography denotes both the analysis of the relationship within a single “data
carrier” between texts of different status and, beside the material aspects of man¬
uscript-making, the social context presupposed by their production and use. We
have some information about how copyists in the 20*-century imperial scriptoria
(adequately furnished with libraries and places of traditional religious education)
were trained. Their education included some knowledge of Ethiopic and calligra¬
phy. The special figures of the dabtards (learned laymen who are the best bearer
of traditional religious knowledge) play an important role in manuscript produc¬
tion, although it has been observed that copying skills are not of pivotal impor¬
tance for them and other learned people of the church, writing being considered a
task of lower prestige. This circumstance may also explain why autograph manu¬
scripts are extremely rare, only beginning to emerge alongside private and official
letters and documents in the 19*^ century.

The central role in the production of manuscripts was played by the monastic
communities, and monasteries have also been - and in many cases still are - the
main repositories. Manuscripts are rarely preserved in specially devised places
(“libraries”): usually they are considered “precious objects”, and are inventoried
and preserved in the same place as liturgical objects, paintings, clothes, textiles,
crosses, and other paraphernalia. In some cases, manuscripts were entrusted
to an ‘aqqdbe masdheft, ‘keeper of the books’, who is responsible for their care;
in many cases written inventories have also been drawn up. Old lists of books
(attested from the end of the 13* century) are normally used by scholars in order
to establish the terminus ante quern of literary works and/or the relative degree of
interest of monastic communities towards them.'"’ Inventories of items and books
often appear as additiones (“additional notes”), on blank pages and/or in spaces
not completely used up by the text, at the beginning or more usually at the end of
the manuscripts. Unlike the colophon, these notes of various types (personal and
historical records; sentences and judgements on controversies; lists of important
people, saints, foreign words, and months; prayers and short hymns; calendric
remarks; fatina ber‘, ‘pen trials”) do not directly refer to the main manuscript
text. The practice of additiones may be considered very old, as we find such notes
(almost contemporary with their production) even in the most ancient manu¬
scripts. The Bible (particularly the Four Gospels, Wangela warq, ‘Golden Gospel’)
and manuscripts of the Gadl (‘Spiritual Combat’) of the founder of a monastic

39 Cf. bibliography above.

40 Cf. Bausi 1996, 20-21; 2008a, 546-547.

Alessandro Bausi

community are frequently found to include documents of special interest, such
as feudal deeds attesting benefits, historical records etc. In some cases, fascicles
containing important feudal deeds are rebound together (e.g., in the “Golden
Gospel” of Dabra Libanos of Semazana, in this case, together with a recent copy
of the same deeds).

3.7 Philology

The analysis of the scribes’ attitude towards their texts and the understanding of
the typology of textual transmission may have some important implications for
editorial methodology today. All the great scholars in Ethiopian Studies have also
been editors of texts, though (with few exceptions) not necessarily up-to-date
with, or sensitive to, the questions of text-critical method involved in that work.'*^
In general, with some unavoidable simplifications, one can say that in the
second half of the 19* century Romanists and Classical philologists adopted the
methods developed by earlier New Testament editors, and brought to comple¬
tion the slow ongoing evolution towards a “progressive” critical reconstructive
method. This method, often called the “Lachmannian” approach, comprises the
following stages; a) a complete survey of all the direct and indirect witnesses to
the text under examination (recensio); b) the identification of their genealogi¬
cal relationship established on the basis of conjunctive errors {Leitfehler); c) the
reconstruction of an original or archetype text, using the majority reading of the
manuscript families; d) a critical edition of what is believed to be a hypothetical
reconstruction of the original text by the editor.'*^ As is well known, the Romanist
Joseph Bedier (once a pupil of Gaston Paris) advanced a drastic criticism of the
reconstructive method. According to him, an overwhelming majority of the pub-

41 Bausi 1996; 1997; 1998a; Lusini 1999b; exhaustive bibliography can be found in Bausi / Dore /
Taddia 2001, 155-165; Bausi 2004a, 19-21; 2006d, 102-105; 2007b, 81, n. 4; futher additions in
Bausi 2010e. Cf. now also Nosnitsin 2007; Derat 2009, 2010; Bosc-Tiesse 2009, 2010; Wion 2009;
Crummey 2011; Deresse Ayenachew 2011; Wion 2011a; 2011b; Wion / Bertrand 2011; Bosc-Tiesse /
Derat 2011; Kropp 2011a; 2011b; Fiaccadori 2012; Wion 2012, passim-, Kropp 2012; 2013; Nosnitsin
2013c; Fiaccadori 2014.

42 Cf. details in Bausi 2006a; 2008b; 2010a; for the “normalization” of Ethiopian Studies, cf.
Marrassini 1986,172-173; 1993, 4-6. Paolo Marrassini is responsible for marking a new philologi¬
cal trend in Ethiopian Studies in a number of pathbreaking contributions; Marrassini 1981; 1987;
1992; 1996; 2000; 2003a; 2008a, 268-269, 272-273; 2008b; 2009; cf. also Lusini 2005; Shiferaw
Bekele 2008; useful considerations are to be found also in Mantel-Niecko 1987.

43 Any critical edition should of course distinguish clearly between manuscript tradition and criti¬
cally established text - what has been called, e.g., “Befund” and “Bearbeitung” by Flahn 2001,52.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

lished stemmata codicum, or genealogical branches, of the manuscripts were two
branched {silva portentosa! ‘a most unnatural branching’, as he put it). Bedier
concluded that selection of preferred variants was a matter of personal judgment,
and that the reduction of genealogical branches to binary oppositions was instru¬
mental in making editorial choice more subjective. Moreover, such genealogical
reconstructions must, he concluded, have produced editions containing texts
that had never existed. From 1913 on, Bedier proposed and formalized what he
termed the “base manuscript” method.This involved publishing the text of a
single selected manuscript, considered by the editor the best, and calling upon
the remaining manuscripts only where they provide better readings of what from
the editor’s point of view are problematic passages.

In reaction to Bedier, the Classical philologists Giorgio Pasquali (following
Paul Maas, who had remained largely unaffected by Bedier’s ideas), his pupil
Sebastiano Timpanaro and the Romanist Gianfranco Contini reasserted the
importance of philological reconstruction.''^ In fact, there is no alternative to the
modern reconstructive (or so-called “Neo-Lachmannian”) method, unless “tran¬
scribing” is understood as editing.'"’ In Bedier’s view, one negative consequence
of this method would be that every new edition would have a different text. To
this criticism, G. Contini replied:

The likely absence of stable readings is for Bedier a vice, the complaint against which,
though fundamental, is not as a point salient enough: continuous dynamic improvement
cannot be viewed as something that is not a positive quality. This progressive approxima¬
tion to the truth, a truth that is, so to speak, fractional in comparison with the presumed
inherent truth of each single witness, a truth that involves a diminution of error, seems to
represent a method worthy of the name of science.’^

44 Already known, but not usually extensively practiced, even before the development of the
Lachmannian method - when the correction of an already edited texts (‘vulgata’) by eventually
using additional manuscripts was the normal practice, cf. Timpanaro 2005 - under the name of
“codex optimus ‘best manuscript’”, or codex vetustissimus ‘“most ancient manuscript’ method”.

45 Cf. the invaluable “reader in the history of Philology” by Stussi 2006, esp. his “Introduction”
(7-45) and selected writings on text-critical methodology by Gaston Paris, Joseph Bedier, Alberto
Varvaro, Gianfranco Contini, Cesare Segre, Sebastiano Timpanaro, Alfredo Stussi, Neil Harris,
Andrea Bozzi (47-232) with updated bibliography (235-240); cf. also the recent English transla¬
tion of Timpanaro 2005, to be read together with Fiesoli 2000.

46 Cf. Milikowski 1999, 147-148; cf. also Reeve 2000, 197.

47 “L’assenza eventuale di lezione stabile e un vizio per Bedier, della cui denuncia e questo un
punto portante, non abbastanza rilevato; ma il continuo miglioramento dinamico non si vede
come non sia una qualita positiva. Questa marcia di awicinamento alia verita, una verita per
cosi dire frazionaria in opposizione alia verita presuntamente organica dei singoli testimoni, una
verita come diminuzione di errore, sembra un procedimento degno della scienza”. Cf. Contini

Alessandro Bausi

To my knowledge, there has been much less work on the history of Islamic manu¬
scripts philology.''® With regard to other Oriental traditions, I am not aware of
detailed studies in the history of editorial technique. But there is, as far as I can
see, much to be learned for example from Indie philology.''®

As far as Ethiopic and other Christian Oriental texts are concerned, one
might reasonably ask whether the method of the “base manuscript”®” (still

1977, 963h; repr. in Contini 1986 [with a “Postilla 1985” on pp. 64-67], 3-63, esp. p. 33; repr. in
Contini 2007,1, 3-62, esp. p. 30; again in Contini 2014, 39.

48 Cf. some references in Marrassini 1987, 348-349; 2007; Bausi 2006a, 544; 2008b, 22-24. The
recent, comprehensive volume by Pfeiffer / Kropp 2007, is useful to get an overall idea of the
“state of the art”, even though many of the contributors do not really focus on the methodology
of textual criticism, whereas those who do with a few exceptions (Peacock 2007; Berschin 2007;
Kleinlogel 2007), seem to go little further than the paradigmatic and rather disappointing con¬
clusions expressed by Witkam 1988, who rightly criticized the mechanical application of stem-
matic methodology to “Middle Eastern” literary traditions (Arabic, Persian, Turkish), yet totally
ignored the fact that Classical and Romance philologists (cf. Pasquali 1954 and Contini 2007)
developing the so-called “neo-Lachmannian” approach have provided a refined revision of me¬
chanical stemmatic methodology, and that the seemingly specific problems troubling editors of
“Middle Eastern” texts which are listed by Witkam (“The ‘unique’ manuscript”, “The edition of
texts preserved in numerous manuscripts”, etc.) are almost exactly the same (the only exception
being “The edition of the Qur’an”) as those usually debated by Romance philologists; in a way,
Endress’s 1982, 274 statement (“Auch die von Paul Maas: Textkritik ... erarbeiteten Grundsatze
soUen bei der Edition arabischer Handschriften mehr Beachtung finden”), still makes sense:
the reconstructive methodology should be considered insufficient only after attempts to apply
it have been fully exhausted. For more nuanced position, see now Witkam 2013; and more in
general, Bausi et al. 2014.

49 Cf. Bharati 1988; Jha 1993; various contributions in Gartner / Krummacher 2000; Thaker
2002; cf. also for further references the very interesting and exemplary article by Isaacson 2009.

50 For a short survey and critical evaluation of recently edited Ethiopic texts, cf. Bausi 2006a,
544-546; 2008b, 24-28; 2010f; Marrassini 2009. The survey could be easily expanded: e.g., one
can note that Getatchew Haile 1982, 69, even if almost unwittingly, appreciably applies elimi-
natio codicum descriptorum to justify the use of a unique base-manuscript (EMML no. 6275);
on the contrary, Gori 2001, 472 (probably on the initiative of the series editor Lanfranco Ricci),
deals with the unique manuscript witness to the text he is publishing as if it were the autograph,
even though it is not (“II criterio fondamentale che ci ha costantemente guidato nella nostra
edizione e quello della massima aderenza alia forma e al contenuto del manoscritto della Silloge.
Di quest’ultimo, abbiamo dunque rispettato con la scrupolosa cura le forme grafiche peculiar!,
anche quando errate ortograficamente, e le scelte morfologiche e sintattiche dell’autore, anche se
sbagliate grammaticalmente” (“The fundamental principle which we have constantly followed
in our edition is that of most adherence to form and contents of the manuscript of the Sylloge. Of
the latter, we have therefore scrupulously respected the peculiar graphic forms, even where their
orthography was manifestly wrong, and the morphological and syntactical choices of the author,
although grammatically erroneous”); Gori 2003, 75, states that: “Data la relativa nitidezza della
grafia in cui e stato scritto il testo dallo scriba Rada Asrass, e la non grande difficolta di lettura

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

largely accepted in these circles and seen by Alphonse Dain as an antiphilo-
logical concept^^), continues to be practiced by force of habit, or, following the
more recent critical rethinking of the reconstructive method, is justified by pur¬
ported special characteristics of the Ethiopic textual traditions themselves. But
although the peculiarities of the Ethiopic textual traditions have yet to be ade¬
quately described, and better editions are needed to accomplish this task, we still
must face the question which of the two critical methods should be employed for
editing the texts. The “base manuscript” method is by “anti-reconstructionists”
in several fields justified by intrinsic, culture-specific reasons.I will now try to
discuss which method is best justified by the features specific to the Ethiopian
textual tradition.

Leaving aside the distinction - in my opinion, a fundamental one - between
texts of Aksumite time on the one hand, and those of the medieval period which
developed in a cultural environment which remained more or less homogeneous
down to the present day on the other, a point worthy of attention is the degree of
freedom the copyist allowed himself in copying the text. A high degree of freedom
would lead to “fluidity”, “variation” or “instability” and make the restoration
and the reconstruction of the text an impossible or simply a meaningless task.

In fact, some editors typically oppose the reconstructive methodology with
an empirical procedure based on “common sense”. Some also support their own
sceptical attitude towards reconstructive philology by quoting “internal evi¬
dences”, like, e.g., the following exemplary passage from the Amharic andemta
(Amharic commentary) on Mashafa Qedddse, ‘Book of the Mass’, with reference
to the Ethiopic (Ge‘ez) text:

mashafmestiryettanaqqaqdl engi andennd bezu, setennd wand, ruqenna qerb ayttanaqqaqem
(“the book takes care of the deep sense [mestir]; on the contrary it does not take care of sin¬
gular and plural, masculine and feminine, far away and near”). (Garima 1925/1926, 12b.

che essa presenta, non si e ritenuto necessario ritrascrivere con mezzi informatici il contenuto
del manoscritto, cio che avrebbe provocato, per altro, oltre che un notevole dispendio di energie
e di tempo, anche il rischio di introdurre degli errori involontari” (“In consideration of the rela¬
tive clearness of the handwriting of the scribe Rada Asrass, and of the fact that it is easily read¬
able, we have not considered necessary to transcribe by informatic devices the contents of the
manuscript, which could have caused, among other things, besides the considerable waste of
time and energy, the insertion of unintentional errors”). The latter statement is quite disconcert¬
ing: if the principle were consistently applied, no critical text could in fact ever be printed; for
similar approaches, cf. detailed references in my contributions quoted above.

51 Dain 1964,171, “un concept antiphilologique”.

52 Cf. Reeve 2000,197; Bausi 2006a, 546-548.

53 Quoted by Tedros Abraha 2007, 120, n. 9. Tedros Abraha is a very active present-day scholar
and editor of Ethiopic texts, cf. Tedros Abraha 2001; 2004; 2007; 2009; cf. also Bausi 2010f.

Alessandro Bausi

If this attitude was consistently present in older times, they say - a fact still to be
verified, notwithstanding the statements of some authors who mainly refer to the
observation of present day practice^'' - Ethiopic textual transmission must have
been “fluid”; and any attempts at a critical reconstruction of textual traditions, at
least in their minor details, would be futile.

A closer examination of another quotation from the andemta commentary on
the Pauline Epistles, Letter to the Romans 5,2,^^ however, reveals how ambiguous
and complex the attitude of traditional Ethiopian scholars really is:

mashaf mestir hitanaqqeq engi (“although the book takes care of the deep sense [mestir]”)
zayebe aytanaqqeqemennd (“on the other hand, it does not take care of the expres¬
sion [zayebe]”): “enta bdtti qomna” belo (“after having said enta bdtti qomna [‘in which
we have stood’]”) “we’etu mekhena” ala (“he said we’etu mekhena [‘that [[masc.[[ is our
boast’]”): veccewem mammakivdccen ndt (“ and this [[fem.]] is [[fern.]] our boast”) “wawe’etu
mekhena” bil (“if it says wawe’etu mekhena [“‘and that [[masc.[[ is our boast’]”), vekawem
mammaldydccen naw (“ and this [masc.] is our boast”). (Mahari Terfe 1955/1956, 70.)

The commentary might not appear perfectly clear, but what is to note here is that
some phrases which are identical in contents, only differ in grammatical gender.
Although this variance does not affect the sense at all, the variant phrases have
been listed one after the other, collected in the andemta commentary text as
attesting different utterances which have been considered worth recording (typi¬
cally in the style of the oral commentary, as usually happens in the andemta):

after having said “in which we have stood”, he said “that [[masc.]] is our boast”, “and this
[[fern.]] is [[fern.]] our boast”, if it says “and that [[masc.]] is our boast”, “and this [masc.] is
our boast”.

54 Cf. Heyer 1970,143: “To be able to keep in mind not only the sacred text but the Tergum of the
Fathers is considered more honourable... If the sacred text, when it is being read aloud, deviates
from the way it is in the Mamher’s memory, he will intervene and correct the Ge’ez text from his
memory. What the Mamher knows by heart is of greater value than all that is written”. I myself
have witnessed to the application of such a principle while visiting Eritrean monasteries.

55 Cf. 6i’ oi) KOI Tpv npoaaytoyfiv EcxfiKopev [Tf[ niarei] Etc; Tiyv xapiv TOUTriv ev p EaTpKapEV, Koi
KouxotpEGa En’ EAnihi Tpq do^pq tou 9eou; “Through him we have obtained access to this grace in
which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God”; zaba’enti’ahu tamardhna
westa zdtti saggdhu ’enta bdtti qomna wawe’etu mekhena wabdtti nesseffo sebhata ’Egzi’abeher,
cf. Tedros Abraha 2001, 82.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

The modern critical edition of the Letter to the Romans and of its Amharic andemtd
commentary^® reproduces as its base text the same modern edition printed in
1948 (Mahari Terfe 1955/1956). Yet the editor’s Italian translation reads^^:

II libro sta ben attento al contenuto profondo, ma non al testo; dopo aver detto Ksulla quale
stiamo» c’e infatti da aggiungere «e il nostro vanto». (Tedros Abraha 2001, 541.)

(“The book is preoccupied with deep meaning, but not with the text; after having said «on
which we stand», it must be added^* «it is our own boast»”).

As it appears, the Italian translation omits the second part of the Amharic text -
seemingly, a repetition - which is different only as far as the grammatical gender
{yeccewem [fern.] versus yekawem [masc.]) is concerned. Indeed, the traditional
Ethiopian scholar who first edited the printed andemtd text thought it neces¬
sary to give an account of the variation and was more sensitive to the gender
distinction than the modern European scholar and translator. The practice dem¬
onstrates that traditional Ethiopian textual scholars can be, as it seems, attentive
also to very minor, purely formal details, like variations of grammatical gender,
which are also considered, recorded and included in the commentary text, even
though they do not actually affect the sense.

Another example useful when we consider the attitudes of traditional copy¬
ists to their texts can be drawn from the manuscript tradition of the Qalementos,
the seven-book l?eve/ation of Peter to Clement, certainly translated from an Arabic
Vorlage probably in the first half of the 14'*^ century.^® I have extensively collated
twelve manuscript witnesses of the text and tried to sketch a stemma codicum (see

56 Cf. Tedros Abraha 2001, 267 [text], and 541 [tr.j, nn. 13-14, also with reference to the passage
by Heyer 1970,143.

57 Cf. Tedros Abraha 2001, 541, with n. 14: “H testo su cui 11 commentario si basa ha omesso
«e il nostro vanto/la nostra gIoria»; il commento vuole riparare. E da notare la singolarita del
principio: «la disattenzione puo essere perdonata al testo ma non al commento». Per I’interprete
etiope sarebbe blasfemo dire, «il testo e monco, corrotto» o cose simili, quindi si fa uso di cir-
conlocuzioni onde trovare una via d’uscita dalle problematiche testuali” (“The text on which the
commentary is based has omitted «it is our boast/our gIory»; the commentary intends to amend
it. The peculiarity of the principle must be noted: «the slip can be excused in the text but not in
the commentary®. The interpreter would consider it blasphemous to say «the text is mutilous,
corrupt® or similarly, therefore circumlocutions are used in order to find a way out of textual
problems”).

58 In fact, the editor seems to have misunderstood the omographs ala, “he said”, for alia, “there
is”, because he translates, ibid.: “c’e infatti da aggiungere”.

59 Cf. Bausi 2006e; 2010b.

Alessandro Bausi

Figure I).®” Manuscripts F and T belong in the main branch y (one of the three
subarchetypes) and immediately descend from a common antecedent t, which
also fits in well with their geographical provenance, as both were written in the
tovm of Ankobar. Manuscript G, belonging in the main branch |3, is a 20**'-cen-
tury copy in a paper exercise book,®^ made originally by an Ethiopian scholar for
his personal use (when microfilmed it belonged in the private library of mamher
Semrata Ab Qasala, Base, Wallo), but which bears marginal and supralinear
annotations that can be identified as & readings. These annotations belong to a
hand, different from the original copyist’s, which apparently corrected the text of
G according to the readings of cp, the common antecedent of both F and G^. It is
important that the extensive marginal and supralinear notes and corrections in
& not only deal with large omissions or major textual variations, but also with
minor ones (such as slighlty different, yet actually equivalent, syntactical con¬
structions, or synonymical variant readings and the like) that do not affect the
fundamental meaning of the text. The scope of this paper will not allow me to
expand on this in more detail. Instead, I will elaborate on how variant readings
can reveal the real attitude of the copyists.

A passage in the second book of the Qalementos states that “the Devil
deceives Adam”: all the manuscripts have the same text {Diydbelos yaseh(h)eto
la-’Addam), except for manuscripts F and & which have “the Devil deceives the
world and Adam” {Diydbelos ydseh(h)eto la-‘dlam wa-la-’Adddm), “the world and”
being in manuscript G a supralinear reading of CF. Both the majority text and
the variant reading of manuscripts F and CF give a possible text, but the point
is not that of ascertaining which is the primary or original reading (according
to the general stemma, it is no doubt the shorter one). As in hundreds, if not
thousands, of other cases, even in this one the second scribe of the manuscript
G who vnrote the marginal and supralinear text CF verified and established his
reading by comparison of the G text vdth an unknown manuscript source depen-

60 Cf. Bausi 2006e, where a detailed description of the manuscript tradition is given. The
stemma codicum may be summarized as follows: from archetype D three branches stem through
three distinct subarchetypes: a, independent witnesses: mss. A and B; p, witness: ms. K and
sub-subarchetype 6, from which mss. D and G stem in turn; and y, from which mss. S C E and
sub-subarchetypes n and t directly stem: in turn, from n mss. P and V stem, and from t ms. T
and a sub-sub-subarchetype (p; finally, ms. F is derived from (p. The reason why (p (a seemingly
unnecessary intermediary between t and F) needs to be postulated will become clear in a while
(s. below). Only manuscripts F (EMML no. 2147), G (EMML no. 4857) and T (Tubingen, Univer-
sitatsbibliothek, M. aeth. 1 = M. a. IX1) will be considered here.

61 This clearly appears from the microfilm of the manuscript, which I have examined, but it is
not noted in the printed catalogue where the manuscripts is described, cf. Getatchew Haile 1993,
338.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

(I)

dent upon the antecedent cp, from which F and CF derive.'’^ But it is important to
note that the second hand CF, far from attempting at revising and correcting the
text, only intended to collate it extensively. The copyist or scholar responsible for
the readings was probably interested in recording and amassing variants. We
have seen above that the traditional Ethiopian scholar who edited the printed
andemtd text gave account in detail even of gender variations which did not affect
the meaning: the same did here the copyist of CF with his annotations, according
to the very same methodological principle which has given birth to the andemtd
commentaries.

This example shows that mediaeval Ethiopian scribes, much like their Euro¬
pean brethren, used multiple textual sources (so-called “contamination”). It is
also instructive from the point of view of the history of the textual transmission
in the proper philological sense. Ethiopian manuscript transmission is on the
whole stable, and the textual tradition of each single text can be established on
the basis of reconstructive principles. Scribes do not systematically change the
received text by their own judgement, neither do they systematically correct its
errors, although this may in some cases happen, of course.*’^ In the present case.

62 The fact that even manuscript T does not have the small addition (as in other occurrences)
demonstrates that the manuscript source is (p, not t: cf. above the description of the stemma
codicum.

63 According to Zuurmond 1989, part I, 39-40 (“Some 500 Ethiopic Gospel manuscripts are
known today. Only rarely one of them is identical with another for more than a couple of vers¬
es. By far the largest number of variant readings obviously stems from internal corruption. It is
hardly exaggerated to say that every Ethiopian scribe in his own way is an ‘Editor’. The average
Ethiopian scribe must almost permanently have mixed the text he was copying with the text
as he had it in mind, or even with the text of another manuscript to which he had immediate

Alessandro Bausi

the copyist of simply collates the text and amasses variants, yet, he does not
try to establish the correct text. Ethiopian copyists usually accepted and toler¬
ated even extremely corrupt texts,®'' wrhich is consistent writh the conception of
an average copyist as not necessarily a man of learning.®^ This, I think, opens the
wray not only for the application of mechanical text-critical reconstructive meth¬
odology, but also to a better understanding of horv wrritten culture was transmit¬
ted in traditional Ethiopia.

4 A case study: The Aksumite Collection

I have devoted myself for some years to a research project which aims to recover
an older layer of the Ethiopic literature that dates back probably to the Aksumite
age. The targeted texts are those multi-textual works that are likely to retain
Aksumite texts translated from a Greek Vorlage, such as the so-called Sinodos (or
Senodos),^^ a corpus canonum of canonico-liturgical character, and hagiographic
collections. This research has led to editions of the Ethiopic versions of the Epistle
70 by St. Cyprian of Carthage, the Acts ofPhileas (largely corresponding to the
Greek text on P. Chester Beatty Library XV, one of the two papyrus witnesses
known so far, the latter being P. Bodmer XX), the Teaching of the 318 Nicene
Fathers on the right faith and the monastic life, the Canonical answers by Peter
of Alexandria.®^ While this research was being conducted in 1999,1 was asked to
prepare a description of a manuscript recently found which looked very old and
contained canonical texts (Figure 2). The description was prepared at once, but

access”). This statement seems exaggerated, and certainly not true for most of the non-Biblical
textual traditions.

64 It should be obviously better investigated, following the stimulating suggestion of the anony¬
mous editorial reviewer, “How does it compare with other traditions? Is it a function of the per¬
ceived authority of the text, or of the poor skills of the copyist?” But this cannot be the task of an
overview paper like this, in the given conditions of philology of Ethiopic texts. Yet I fully agree
with the general statements that “the value assigned to particular classes/genres of religious
literature (Bible; commentary; other genres) might help to establish how social attitudes to/use
of texts may have affected copyists’ behaviour”, and that “‘variation’ itself is a complex phenom¬
enon with different causes in different textual traditions depending on social factors and the
ways in which texts are generated/regenerated and used”.

65 Cf. Bausi 2008a, 526-530.

66 Exactly so, not ‘Synodus’: Sinodos (or Senodos) is the transcription of the Ethiopic word; cf.
Bausi 2010c.

67 Cf. Bausi 1998b; 2002; 2004c; 2005e; 2006f; for the Acts of Phileas cf. now Schenke 2010a;
2010b; Bausi 2010g; 2014.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

the study of the texts was troubled by a series of problems which now seem to be
finally resolved. An edition is being prepared, and the texts will soon be put at
everyone’s disposal. Meanwhile, increasingly detailed descriptions of the con¬
tents, also covering some linguistic aspects, and partial editions have appeared.®®

m:i'2tr>no^7i
a> <J> jf Ci : w.t r.f
?r uT't-’iOfl.-A'nrrt

/I • <p oo tvi i-.vvr

/rn. t-.'>7 V/f <i>z

I'^nnfiixp

Jrj ■ a-T-f: t-4i: rf/f.
OTA/J4: POVfJ.-nA

sw.-rtxi/n^.-TroJV
fiyi:A‘hTy.rt-:a>
yttJsr^c TtinT'P-'J
i’:<Fn>^'h:A'n! ,

BO (?n-\Xr P.E: n CT>
AX;'n-fi.Trt-fi-r>c
*:<F.o»rt

tJi-fl: <A»,C./7.-/7 #•

jf A tint' "rich t

f>:<PZ7^n i.-tPTM
47 S ■• <J>/1 R o^.’HO

f-A.

jcu«:A>/z^r-arjf:.?.

h:7t>rt-ZAyi4^- T
A t-i .E f7.0.-n

77 <r» ■ ♦•jc -00 • #•?•

. z-nA!.-

z^i-jntrtf*zr-

n 77«’" =

TTr-nOTVArJ-Xr

4-*•• J’>'n

W <J“?J 4? • Tirt •• R
JT..' #*.-77Vf7'

X 4-W/j: OO-: A O •• O
BoO.’r 77 4-'X #
tih:Z7'nc-ti7ijr>

■iny-:z i'ftrtnti

Cl-TfAtZ^A
zti 7*; o^/n j.' BO 4;
<'<I7::0AA;/7^.^-AV

Krt^-nc rti-AvA

r777«B.-+77 ^.

.E ToA/X*--X O-'XO *
n'ht'P-rts’t^fir.

tfKp-r
A >474-,

rj 474 4-■• O’: 77
\/4Bw4-;BO><£/t7: 4"
/j/7-X>77;04.A77-
n&‘t'i!-n/7A'ny:

Z JjA7A:<PZV/47/A.-
v74 <70 4-.-X/7/V/T7.-n
?i>4-74.-»«oo4-4-:
X£ \A7XA»:<J>0
/7J-4fl4'.p«:fi.'X
A.f2fAA:7!>n;£tt'
00 ,-

17 /7.A>4--CO>,f.4-7/.7'^>-

■ ■BO>X4-77J-f >.Xi

}.7A7A V>400 4- Ai
A/)'4-0<I’-744'f >:
X.T/Ooy.^a’Z'i^n:
OXAA^^/7"

* nAV-

■ ■X}-?<>/*7/n./7:.EW

ro°-no°'777P t!;^Xr

9-^h!VKZ fAA7A:
„\74 BO 4"! ar Jt’T’r:'

:':77A74’<70<7'.7^47-

B0tirt47:4"'A7PJ70;

X. n vT^ <7® 4-• Aje; AO
^77007-A47.'/7b®:77
•J/„r.-/lA0O:7-?.X
7'4":-#.e.7-47AA:<7>

Fig. 2: Manuscript of the/i/csu/Tr/te Collection, foil. 17v-18r, after restoration (foil. 16v-17r
according to a preliminarily reconstructed numbering, cf. Bausi 2011c, 30-33). Traditio apos-
tolica, 3:3-4; 7; 8:1-8; 13; 11; 10:1-3. Picture by Ethio-SPaRe project.

In its present form, the manuscript (witnessing to what I have called the Aksumite
Collection) contains thirty-six Ethiopic texts of various length (some are very
short), including writings of the Church fathers (patristic literature), liturgical
texts (rituals and prayers for church service), canonical texts (ecclesiastic rules
and counciliar canons), and one historical text. Although different in content,
it much resembles the so-called Sinodos, a very influential collection of norma¬
tive and liturgical texts translated from Arabic in the 14* century, still in use and
much revered in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church. But whereas the
bulk of the Ethiopic canonical and liturgical texts known at present, the Sinodos
included, was believed to derive, through a complicated and patchy sequence of
translations, from medieval and late Arabic textual recensions (made since the
14* century), with only occasional earlier texts surviving (i.e. some liturgical texts

68 Cf. all details in Bausi 2006b; 2006c; 2009b; 2011c; 2012; 2013.

Alessandro Bausi

appear to be archaic and Greek-based, although they are mixed with the Arabic-
based later ones), the new manuscript clearly reaches back to the oldest known
layer of the early Christian (not only the Ethiopian) canon law and liturgy. Beside
remarkable linguistic elements, the manuscript provides for the first time evi¬
dence that the development of a textual tradition may be traced in non-Biblical
Ethiopic texts to such a degree of detail.

It is difficult to imagine that the Aksumite Collection is an isolated case and
it is reasonable to assume that the number of the preserved Aksumite texts is
relatively low thanks to a process of replacement, in which the old translations
from the Greek (marked by linguistic and cultural peculiarities) were supplanted
by new translations from the Arabic. We cannot, however, establish whether the
revision of the texts was accompanied by parallel and consistent updating of cod-
icological features, or whether the older models kept exerting their influence.®®

Some other characteristics of the manuscript are also worth mentioning. This
is probably the oldest non-Biblical Ethiopic manuscript known so far. It shares
some palaeographic and linguistic features with the other older Ethiopic manu¬
scripts (including the two Four Gospels manuscripts from Abba Garima).^” As to
the content of the Aksumite Collection, I will mention two texts.

The first is a new Ethiopic version of the so-called Traditio apostolica, Apos¬
tolic tradition’, definitely the most important Christian canonico-liturgical text,
once attributed to Hippolytus of Rome. Its Greek original being lost, it has sur¬
vived only in a number of versions in Latin, Coptic, Arabic and Ethiopic, and in
rearrangements in Greek, Syriac, Arabic, of which the most archaic and faithful
is a Latin version preserved in the scriptio inferior in the palimpsest manuscript

69 In this context, the case of the Mashafa tefut, a manuscript consisting of the Octateuch, Four

Gospels and Sinodos, dating from the centuries, that was accurately reproduced (di¬

rectly from the original model or from an intermediary copy) by order of King lyasu I (1682-1706)
is remarkable: cf. Bausi 2008, 539.

70 Certain striking and so far never observed morphological affinities with verbal patterns of
Tigrinya, the language at present spoken in the highlands of Tegray and Eritrea, spoil the mono¬
lithic structure of classical Ethiopic, where, except for a few examples in the causative prefix
and pronoun morphology of epigraphic texts, no morphological variations had never been re¬
corded before. One could make a number of observations on the linguistic and palaeographic
aspects of this new document, and elsewhere I have already dealt with some philological and
linguistic peculiarities. A partial list of the latter includes non-application of the laryngeal rules,
phonetic change from diyd- to zeyd-, e-ending (fifth order) forms in isolated prepositions and
plural relative pronoun, peculiar pattern of imperfect of the passive t-stem (ye-t-qettal, instead
of ye-t-qattal), a-prefixe (first order) in causative-of-the-reflexive ost-stem iyasta-, instead of
ydsta-), cf. Bausi 2005a. Among a number of other linguistic features I can mention for example
frequency of the nominative gerundive (as in Tigrinya) as opposed to accusative gerundive (as in
Ethiopic and Amharic).

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, Codex LV (53). But the Ethiopic text of the Traditio
apostolica as previously knovyn to us from other sources, is quite different from
the text in the Aksumite Collection, the latter being clearly a new independent
witness to the archetype. Although the two Ethiopic versions share few common
passages and are thus in a complex relationship, numerous correspondences
with the Latin testify to the new text’s belonging to the oldest recoverable textual
phase of the Traditio apostolica and, at the same time, point to conjunctive errors
(or innovations) of all the other vdtnesses. Moreover, as a large portion of the
Latin text is lost, the new Ethiopic version represents a great step forward in our
knowledge of the archetype of the Traditio apostolica; a problem that has chal¬
lenged philologists for more than a century since Edmund Hauler’s publication
of the Latin text in 1900.^^

The second text is even more important. Probably prefixed to the collection
as an introduction, it contains a History of the Alexandrian Episcopate, muti¬
lated in some parts.^^ The text is exceptional from two points of view; first, it is
the first Ethiopic text of intentionally historical character dating from Aksumite
period (with the exception of the epigraphical texts written by the initiative of the
Aksumite kings); second, the historical fragments may be identified as belong¬
ing to a lost Greek History of the Alexandrian Episcopate (not to be confused with
the later Copto-Arabic History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria), whose existence
scholars from Tito Orlandi onward have traced in later texts, the most important
of which are the Latin excerpts in Verona, Biblioteca Capitolare, Codex LX (58).
The new Ethiopic manuscript provides by far the most important evidence for the
reconstruction of the original text, of which, for long passages it is the unique
witness.^^ The anonymous author of this History had access to materials drawn
from the Alexandrian archives and some documents from the archive have been
incorporated into the narrative. The narrative starts with the founding of the
Alexandrian episcopal seat by Saint Mark and the early bishops, continuing with
the events under the episcopate of Peter and his immediate successors down to
the outbreak of the so-called “Melitian schism” and the story of Arius the priest.

71 Cf. Bradshaw / Johnson / Phillips 2002; Bausi 2009b; 2010d; 2011c.

72 The bishop of Alexandria was also head of the Egyptian Church from the 4**' century onward.

73 At present, a critical edition, translation, and codicological and historical commentary both
of the Ethiopic and Latin versions is underway, by myself for the Ethiopic text and by Alberto
Camplani for the Latin witnesses; cf. also the papers by Alberto Camplani, “Methodological Con¬
siderations on the Sources about the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Late Antiquity”, and Alessan¬
dro Bausi, “New Ethiopic Documents for the History of Christian Egypt”, jointly presented at the
“Ninth International Congress of Coptic Studies”, Cairo, Coptic Patriarchate, September 14-20,
2008, now printed, Bausi / Camplani 2013. Cf. also Camplani 2003, 38-39; 2004, 154-162; 2006;
2007; 2008; 2009.

Alessandro Bausi

The details it provides, including lists of bishops and their respective dioceses
recorded for the episcopates of Maximus (264-282), Theonas (282-300) and Peter
(300-311), provide unparalleled and hitherto unknown documentation for the
history of early Christian institutions in Egypt. Furthermore, quotations from this
History which survived in a few later Ethiopic texts are marked as passages from
the Synodicon of the Law. This is probably the name under which the collection
had been known until the 15* century in the Ethiopian literary tradition.

The existence of these and other ancient Latin versions of texts parallel
to ancient Ethiopic versions in the manuscripts of the Biblioteca Capitolare of
Verona is noteworthy: it seems that archaic and outdated texts have in this case
been preserved in “peripheral” areas of the Christian world.

The manuscript confirms the pre-eminence of religious, literary and cultural
relationships between Egypt and Aksumite Ethiopia, and definitely proves the
existence in an early period of translated canonical and liturgical texts. The lan¬
guage of the newly discovered texts is mainly a word for word rendering of the
Greek original; it is also a valuable source for Aksumite Ethiopic. Remarkable
features pointing to dialectal (probably Tigrinya) peculiarities may be due to the
copyists or redactors - less likely to the translator(s) - and deserve careful schol¬
arly scrutiny. Some parts of the collection were reused and included in later Ethi¬
opic works which were being translated anew from Arabic, such as the Sinodos.
The complex and unexpected “philological” processes attested in the Aksumite
Collection textual tradition call for new methods of analysing and interpreting the
Ethiopian literary tradition. The new evidence also strongly reasserts that neither
the study of the Christian Orient nor that of Antiquity and Late Antiquity (Eastern
and Western) is possible without taking into consideration the contribution of the
Ethiopic sources.

List of sigla and abbreviations

EMML = Collegeville, Minnesota, Ethiopian manuscripts microfilmed for the Ethiopian

Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa and for the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library,
St John’s Abbey and University.

EAe = Siegbert Uhlig (ed.). Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, i: A-C; ii: D-Ha-, ill: He-N; (ed. in
cooperation with Alessandro Bausi) iV: 0-X, Alessandro Bausi (ed. in cooperation with
Siegbert Uhlig) V: Y-Z. Supplementa Addenda and Corrigenda Maps index, Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010, 2014.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

References

Agati, Maria Luisa (2003), II libro manoscritto. Introduzione alia codicologla (Studia archae-
ologica 12A), Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider [repr. 200A].

Agati, Maria Luisa (2009), II libro manoscritto da Oriente a Occidente. Parana codicologla
comparata (Studia archaeologica 166), Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider.

Avanzini, Alessandra (2007a), “Inscriptions”, in: EAe III, 152o-153o.

Avanzini, Alessandra (2007b), “Ga‘az inscriptions in Ethiopia/Eritrea in antiquity”, in: EAe III,
159fa-162o.

Balicka-Witakowska, Ewa (2005), “Harag”, in: EAe II, 1009a-1010o.

Balicka-Witakowska, Ewa (2007), “Preparation of manuscripts”, in: EAe III, 7A9o-752o.

Balicka-Witakowska, Ewa / Bausi, Alessandro / Bosc-Tiesse, Claire / Nosnitsin, Denis (201A),
“Codicology of Ethiopic manuscripts”, in: Bausi et al. 2014.

Bartelt, Ernst / Hammerschmidt, Ernst (1976), “Die Technik des athiopischen Handschrift-
eneinbandes”, in: Herbert Franke / Walther Heissig / WolfgangTreue (eds.). Folia
Rara. Wolfgang VOIGT LXV. diem natalem celebrant! ab amicis et catalogorum codicum
orientalium conscribendorum collegis dedicata (VOHD Suppl. Band 19), Wiesbaden:
Steiner, 6-10.

Bausi, Alessandro (1992), “Alcune considerazioni sul «Senodos» etiopico”, in: Rassegna di
Studi Etiopici [1990], 5-73.

Bausi, Alessandro (1996) “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunita monastiche dell’Eritrea
[I. Dabra Maryam]”, in: Rassegna diStudiEtiopici 38 [1994], 13-69.

Bausi, Alessandro (1997), “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunita monastiche dell’Eritrea
[II. Dabra Bizan]”, in: Rassegna di Studi Etiopici 39 [1995], 25-48.

Bausi, Alessandro (1998a), “Su alcuni manoscritti presso comunita monastiche dell’Eritrea
[III. Dabra Libanos. Dabra Abuna Besu’a Amlak. Dabra Marqorewos]”, in: Rassegna di
Studi Etiopici 41 [1997], 13-56.

Bausi, Alessandro (1998b), “l’Epistola70 di Cipriano di Cartagine in versione etiopica”, in:
Aethiopica 1,101-130.

Bausi, Alessandro (2002), La versione etiopica degli Acta Phileae nel Gadla sama’tat
(Supplemento n. 92 agli Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di Napoli), Napoli: lUO.

Bausi, Alessandro (2004a), “II testo, il supporto e la funzione. Alcune osservazioni sul caso
dell’Etiopia”, in: Verena Bblletal. (eds.), Studia Aethiopica in Honour of Siegbert Uhlig on
the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 7-22.

Bausi, Alessandro (2004b), “Some short remarks on the Canon tables in Ethiopic manuscripts”,
\n: StudiMagrebini 26 [1998-2002] = Carmela Baffioni (ed.), Scritti in onore di Clelia
Sarnelli Cerqua (Centro di Studi Magrebini), Napoli: Universita degli Studi di Napoli
“L’Orientale”, 45-67 [revised version of the article with the same title printed in: Birhanu /
Pankhurst2003,120-139].

Bausi, Alessandro (2004c), “La versione etiopica della Didascalia dei318 niceni sulla retta fede
e la vita monastica”, in: Enzo Lucchesi / Ugo Zanetti (eds.),/Egyptus Christiana. Melanges
d’hagiographie egyptienne et orientale dedies a la memoire du P. Paul Devos bollandiste
(Cahiers d’Orientalisme 25), Geneve: Patrick Cramer, 225-248.

Bausi, Alessandro (2005a), “Ancient features of Ancient Ethiopic”, in: Aethiopica 8,149-169.

Alessandro Bausi

Bausi, Alessandro (2005b), “Etloplco ’etle: a proposlto dl un’lpotesl recente”, In: Scrinium
1 = Denis Nosnltsln et al. (eds.), Varia Aethiopica. In Memory of Sevir B. Chernetsov
(1943-2005), St. Petersburg: Byzantlnorosslca, 3-11.

Bausi, Alessandro (2005c), “Dabra Llbanos”, In: EAe ll, 28a-29b.

Bausi, Alessandro (2005d), “3nda Abba Garlma”, In: EAe ll, 284a-286o.

Bausi, Alessandro (2005e), “Note aggluntlve su[[’Epistola70 dl Clprlano: verslone etloplca e
verslone slrlaca”. In: Michele Bernardlnl / Natalia L. Tornesello (eds.), Scrittiin onore di
Giovanni M. d’Erme. Saggi di colleghi e amici in occasione del suo compleanno, I (Series
Minor LXVlll), Napoli: Unlverslta degll Studl dl Napoli “L’Orlentale”, Dlpartlmento dl Studl
Aslatlcl, 99-109.

Bausi, Alessandro (2006a), “Current Trends In Ethiopian Studies: Philology”, In: Slegbert
Uhllg et al. (eds.). Proceedings oftheX\A'“ International Conference of Ethiopian Studies.
Hamburg July 20-25, 2003 (Aethloplstlsche Forschungen 65), Wiesbaden: Harrassowltz
Verlag, 542-551.

Bausi, Alessandro (2006b), “The Aksumlte Background of the Ethloplc ‘Corpus canonum’”. In:
Slegbert Uhllg et al. (eds.). Proceedings oftheX\A'" International Conference of Ethiopian
Studies. Hamburgjuly 20-25, 2003 (Aethloplstlsche Forschungen 65), Wiesbaden:
Harrassowltz Verlag, 532-541.

Bausi, Alessandro (2006c), “La Coiiezione aksumita canonlco-llturglca”. In: Adamantius 12 =
Alberto Camplanl (ed.), II Patriarcato di Alessandria nella tarda antichita e net Medioevo,
Bologna: Morcelllana, 43-70.

Bausi, Alessandro (2006d), “Un Indlce del Liber Aksumae", In: Aethiopica 9,102-146.

Bausi, Alessandro (2006e), “The Manuscript Tradition of the Ethloplc Qalementos. A Short
Note”, \n: Rocznik Orientalistyczny59/l = Witold Wltakowskl / Laura Lykowska (eds.),
Walatta Yohan na. Ethiopian Studies in Honour of Joanna Mantel-Niecko on the Occasion of
the 50'^ Year of Her Work at the Institute of Oriental Studies, Warsaw University, Warszawa:
Ellpsa, 47-57.

Bausi, Alessandro (2006f), “La verslone etloplca delle Risposte canoniche di Timoteo I

attribute a Pietro dl Alessandria {CPGII, nr. 2520)”, In: Scrinium 2 = Basil Lourle / Alexej
V. Muraviev (eds.), Universum Hagiographicum. Memorial R.P. Michel van Esbroeck, s.j.
(1934-2003), St. Petersburg: Soclete des etudes byzantlnes et slaves, 41-57.

Bausi, Alessandro (2007a), “La catalogazlone come base della rlcerca: ll caso dell’Etlopla”,

In: Benedetta Cennl / Chlara Marla Francesca Lalll / Leonardo Maglonaml (eds.), Zenit e
Nadir II. I manoscritti deii’area del Mediterraneo: la catalogazlone come base della ricerca.
Attl del Semlnarlo Internazlonale. Montepulclano, 6-8 lugllo 2007 (Medieval Writing,
Settlmane pollzlane dl studl superlorl sulla cultura scrltta In eta medlevale e moderna 2),
Montepulclano (SI): Thesan & Turan S.r.L, 87-108.

Bausi, Alessandro (2007b), “Un Indlce de[[’Evangelo d’oro dl Dabra Llbanos (Semazana, Akkala
Guzay, Eritrea)”, In: Aethiopica 10, 81-91.

Bausi, Alessandro (2008a), “La tradlzlone scrlttorla etloplca”. In: Segno e Testo. International
Journal of Manuscripts and Text Transmission 6, 507-557.

Bausi, Alessandro (2008b), “Philology as Textual Criticism: ‘Normalization’ of Ethiopian

Studies”, In: Ethiopian Philology. Bulletin of Philological Society of Ethiopia 1/1 [November
2008], 13-46.

Bausi, Alessandro (2009a), “Una clvllta del manoscrltto”. In: Giuseppe Barblerl / Gianfranco
Flaccadorl (eds.). Nigra sum sed formosa. Sacro e bellezza dell’Etiopia cristiana. Ca’

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

Foscari Esposizioni 13 marzo -10 maggio 2009, Universita Ca’ Foscari Venezia - Friuladria
Credit Agricole - Regione delVeneto, Vicenza: Terra Ferma, 183-186.

Bausi, Alessandro (2009b), “The >so-called Traditio apostoUcar. preliminary observations on
the new Ethiopic evidence”, in: Grieser / Merkt 2009, 291-321.

Bausi, Alessandro (2010a), “Philology (research in)”, in: EAe IV, lA2o-lAAfa.

Bausi, Alessandro (2010b), “Qalemantos”, in: EAe IV, 251fa-253fa.

Bausi, Alessandro (2010c), “Senodos”, in: EAe IV, 623o-625o.

Bausi, Alessandro (2010d), “Traditio apostolica”, in: EAe IV, 980o-981fa.

Bausi, Alessandro (2010e), “Wangela Warq (Golden Gospel)”, in: EAe IV, 1130fa-1132a.

Bausi, Alessandro (2010f), review of Tedros Abraha 2009, in: Aethiopica 13, 2010, 24A-253.

Bausi, Alessandro (2010g), “A Case for Multiple Text Manuscripts being ‘Corpus-Organizers’”,
in: Manuscript Cultures Newsletter 3, 3A-36.

Bausi, Alessandro (2011a), “Intorno ai Vangeli Etiopici di Abba Garima”, in: Co Parola del
passato 65, 2010 [2011], A60-471; Engl, minor version: “The ‘True Story’ of the Abba
Garima Gospels”, in: Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Newsletter 1, 17-20.

Bausi, Alessandro (2011b), “Die athiopische Manuskriptkultur - The Ethiopian Manuscript

Culture”, in: Jbrg B. Quenzer (ed.), Ausstellungskatalog..Manuskriptkulturen/Manuscript
cultures" [Catalogue of the exhibition: „Faszination Flandschrift: 2000 Jahre Manuskript-
kulturen in Asien, Afrika und Europa“, Staats- und Universitatsbibliothek Flamburg,

17 November 2011 - 8 January 2012] = Manuscript Cultures Newsletter tt, 2011, 52-60.

Bausi, Alessandro (2011c), “La ‘nuova’ versione etiopica della Traditio apostolica: edizione e
traduzione preliminare”, in: Paola Buzi / Alberto Camplani (eds.), Christianity in Egypt:
literary production and intellectual trends. Studies in honour of Tito Orlandi (Studia
Ephemeridis Augustinianum 125), Roma: Augustinianum, 19-69.

Bausi, Alessandro (2012), “Una ‘lista’ etiopica di apostoli e discepoli”, in: Alessandro Bausi /
Antonella Brita / Andrea Manzo (eds. in cooperation with Carmela Baffioni / Ersilia
Francesca),/Cfh/op/ca et Orientalia. Studi in onore di Yaqob Beyene (Studi Africanistici,
Serie Etiopica 9), Napoli: Dipartimento Asia, Africa e Mediterraneo, 2012, I, A3-67.

Bausi, Alessandro (2013), “Liste etiopiche di vescovi niceni”, in: Peter Bruns / Fleinz Otto
Luthe(eds.), Orientalia Christiana. Festschrift fur Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag
(Eichstatter Beitrage zum Christlichen Orient 3), Wiesbaden: Flarrassowitz Verlag, 33-73.

Bausi, Alessandro (201A), “The Coptic Version of the Acta Phileae”, in: Comparative Oriental
Manuscript Studies Newsletter 8,11-13.

Bausi, Alessandro / Camplani, Alberto (2013), “New Ethiopic Documents for the Flistory of
Christian Egypt”, in: Zeitschrift fur antikes Christentum. Journal of Ancient Christianity
17/2-3,195-227.

Bausi, Alessandro / Dore, Gianni / Taddia, Irma (eds.) (2001), Materiale antropologicosul
“Rim" in Etiopia ed Eritrea - Anthropological and Historical Documents on “Rim" in
Ethiopia and Eritrea (II Politico e La Memoria), Torino: Editrice L’Harmattan Italia.

Bausi, Alessandro / Nosnitsin, Denis (201A), “Ethiopic Palaeography”, in: Bausi et al. 201A.

Bausi, Alessandro et al. (eds.) (2014), Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies. An
Introduction (print-on-demand and online edition, forthcoming).

Bernand, Etienne (2000), Recueil des Inscriptions de I’Ethiopie des periodes pre-axoumite et
axoumite. III. Traductions et commentaires, A. Les inscriptions grecques, Paris: Diffusion
de Boccard.

Alessandro Bausi

Bernand, Etienne / Drewes, Abraham Johannes / Schneider, Roger (1991), Recueil des

Inscriptions de I’Ethiopie des periodes pre-axoumite et axoumite. Introduction de Francis
Anfray, i. Les documents-, ii. Les planches, Paris; Diffusion de Boccard.

Berschin, Walter (2007), “Lachmann und der Archetyp”, in: Pfeiffer / Kropp 2007, 251-257.

Beylot, Robert / Rodinson, Maxime (1995), Repertoire des bibliotheques etdes catalogues
de manuscrits ethiopiens (Documents, Etudes et Repertoires Publics par I’institut
de Recherches et d’Histoire des Textes A6), Paris: Centre National de la recherche
Scientifique, Editions - Turnhout: Brepols.

Bharati, H.L.N. (1988), An introduction to Indian textual criticism and modern book publishing
(CiiL occasional monographs series), Mysore: Central institute of Indian Languages.

Birhanu Teferra / Pankhurst, Richard (eds.) (2003), Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference on the History of Ethiopian Art. Add\s Ababa, 5-8 November 2002, [Addis
Ababa]: institute of Ethiopian Studies, Addis Ababa University.

Boll, Verena (2007), “Die athiopische Schrift im Spiegel der Religion”, in: Sophia G.
Vashalomidze / Lutz Vashalomidze (eds.), Der Christliche Orient und seine Umwelt.
Gesammelte Studien zu Ehren Jurgen Tubachs anidjilich seines 60. Geburtstags (Studies in
Oriental Religions 56), Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 251-273.

Bosc-Tiesse, Claire (2009), “Gouverner et definir un territoire: geopolitique, art et production
manuscrite au Lasta entre 1667 et 1768”, in: Annales d’Ethiopie 2A, 87-1A8.

Bosc-Tiesse, Claire (2010), “Saintete et intervention royale au monastere Saint-Etienne de
Hayq au tournant du xiii' et du xiv^ siecle. L’image de iyasus Mo’a dans son Evangile”, in:
Oriens Christianus 9A, 199-227.

Bosc-Tiesse, Claire / Derat, Marie-Laure (2011), “Acts of Writing and Authority in Bagwana-Lasta
between the Fifteenth Century and the Eighteenth Century: A Regional Administration
Comes to Light”, in: Northeast African Studies lljl, 85-110.

Bozzacchi, Giampiero (1996), “La legatura etiopica”, in: Marina Regni / Piera Giovanna Tordella
(eds.), Conservazione deimateriali librari, archivistici e grafici, i (Documenti 3), Torino:
Umberto Allemandi 8i C., 333-339.

Bradshaw, Paul F. / Johnson, Maxwell E. / Phillips, L. Edward (2002), The Apostolic Tradition. A
Comme/rfory (Hermeneia), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

Brakmann, Heinzgerd (199A), To napaioTq pappdpotq cpyov OeTov. Die Einwurzelung derKirche
im spatantiken Reich von Aksum, Bonn: Borengasser.

Bucarelli, Osvaldo (ed.) (2007), Museo Archivio Giuseppe Vedovato. Pontificia Universita
Gregoriana, Roma: Gangemi Editore.

Camplani, Alberto (2003), “Moment! di interazione religiosa ad Alessandria e la nascita
dell’elite egiziana cristiana”, in: Luigi Perrone et al. (eds.), Origeniana Octavo. Origen
and the Alexandrian Tradition. Origene e la tradizione alessandrina. Papers of the 8th
International Origen Congress. Pisa, 27-31 August 2001,! (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum
Theologicarum Lovaniensium 16A), Leuven: University Press, 32-42.

Camplani, Alberto (2004), “L’autorappresentazione dell’episcopato di Alessandria tra !V e V
secolo: question! di metodo”, in: Annali diStoria dell’Esegesi 21/1,154-162.

Camplani, Alberto (2006), “Lettere episcopaii, storiografia patriarcaie e ietteratura canonica.

A proposito dei Codex Veronensis LX (58)”, in: Rivista di storia del cristianesimo 3/1,
117-164.

Camplani, Alberto (2007), “I’Historia ecclesiastica en copte et [’historiographic du siege
episcopal d’Alexandrie. A propos d’un passage sur Melitios de Lycopolis”, in: Nathalie
Bosson / Anne Boud’Hors (eds.), Actes du Huitieme Congres International d’Etudes Copies.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

Paris, 28 juin - 3 juilliet 2004, II (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 163), Leuven - Paris -
Dudley, MA: Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 417-424.

Camplani, Alberto (2008), “La funzione religiosa del vescovo di Alessandria: a proposito
di alcune recent! prospettive di ricerca”, in: Sergio Pernigotti / Marco Zecchi (eds.),
Sacerdozio e societa civile nell’Egitto antico. Atti del terzo Colloquio. Bologna - 30/31
maggio 2007 (Universita di Bologna, Dipartimento di Archeologia, Archeologia e Storia
della Civilta Egiziana e del Vicino Oriente Antico, Material! e Studi 14), Bologna: Editrice La
Mandragora, 149-165.

Camplani, Alberto (2009), “Pietro di Alessandria tra documentazione d’archivio e agiografla
popolare”, in: Grieser / Merkt 2009,138-156.

Camplani, Alberto (2011a), “Un’antlca teoria della successione patrlarcale In Alessandria”, In:
Paola Buzi / Daniela PIcchl / Marco Zecchi (eds.), Aegyptiaca etCoptica. Studi in onore
di Sergio Pernigotti (BAR International Series 2264), Oxford: Archaeopress. Publishers of
British Archaeological Reports, 59-68.

Camplani, Alberto (2011b), “A Syriac fragment from the Liber Historiarum by Timothy Aelurus
(CPG 5486), the Coptic Church History, and the Archives of the Bishopric of Alexandria”,
in: Paola Buzi / Alberto Camplani (eds.), Christianity in Egypt: literary production and
intellectual trends. Studies in honour of Tito Orlandi (Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum
125), Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 205-226.

Capon, Lester (2008), “Extreme bookbinding - a fascinating preservation project in Ethiopia”,
\n: Skin Deep 26 [Autumn 2008], 2-11.

Cavallo, Guglielmo (1998), “Caratterl materlall del manoscritto e storia della tradizione”. In:
Ferrarll998, 389-397.

Chernetsov, Sevir (2005), “Ethiopian Orthodox (Tawahado) Church. History from the second half
of the 19*'' cent, to 1959”, in: EAe II, 421a-424o.

Clula, Arlanna / Stella, Francesco (eds.) (2007), Digital Philology and Medieval Texts (Art! Spazi
Scritture 4), Pisa: Pacini editore.

Cohen, Marcel (1931), La grande invention de I’ecriture etson evolution, I. Texte, Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale, Librairie C. Klincksieck.

Conti Rossini, Carlo (1901), “I’Evangelo d’oro di Dabra Libanos”, in: Rendiconti della Reale
Accademia del Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, ser. 5“, 10,177-219.

Conti Rossini, Carlo (1905), Acta S. Basalota Mikd’el etS. Anorewos (Corpus Scriptorum

Christianorum Orientalium [repr. 28-29], Scriptures Aethlopici ser. 2, 20 [repr. 11-12]),
Paris [repr. Lovanll: In aedibus E. Peeters, 1961-1962].

ContinI, Gianfranco (1977), “Filologla”, In: Enciclopedia del Novecento, II, Roma: Istituto
dell’EnciclopedIa Italiana, 954-972.

ContinI, Gianfranco (1986), Breviario di ecdotica, Milano - Napoli: RIccardo RIcclardI Editore,
1986 [repr. EinaudI Paperbacks, Letteratura 222, Torino: ElnaudI, 1990,1992^].

Contini, Gianfranco (2007), Frammenti di filologia romanza. Scritti di ecdotica e linguistica (ed.
Giancarlo Breschi), l-ll (Fondazione Ezio Franceschini, Fondo Gianfranco Contini, Archivio
romanzo 11), Firenze: Edizioni del Galluzzo per la Fondazione Ezio Franceschini.

Contini, Gianfranco (2014), Filologia (ed. Lino Leonard!) (Introduzioni), Bologna: il Mulino.

Cowley, Roger W. (1982), “Ethlopic [Manuscripts]”, in: M. Rosaria Falivene / Alan F. jesson

(eds.). Historical Catalogue of the Manuscripts of Bible House Library, London: The British
and Foreign Bible Society, 66-121.

Crummey, Donald (2011), “Gondar Land Documents: Multiple Copies, Multiple Recensions”, In:
Northeast African Studies 11/2,1-42.

Alessandro Bausi

Dain, Alphonse (1964), Les manuscrits. Nouvelle edition revue (Collection d’etudes anclennes
publlees sous le patronage de I’Assoclatlon Guillaume Bude), Paris: Soclete d’Edltlon «Les
Belles-Lettres» [2"“^ edition; 1^' edition 1949; 3'^'* edition 1973].

Davies, Donald M. (1987), “The dating of Ethloplc Manuscripts”, In: Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 46/4, 287-307.

Del Corso, Luclo (2007), “11 progetto PSl on-line: appllcazlonl Informatlche per una fllologla
materlale del testl paplracel”. In: Clula / Stella 2007,165-174.

Delamarter, Steve / Demeke Berhane (2007), A Catalogue of Previously Uncatalogued Ethiopic
Manuscripts in England. Twenty-three Manuscripts in the Bodleian, Cambridge, and
Rylands Libraries and in a Private Collection (Journal of Semitic Studies Supplement 21),
Oxford: Oxford University Press on Behalf of the University of Manchester.

Delamarter, Steve / Melaku Terefe, Ethiopian Scribal Practice 1: Plates for the Catalogue of
the Ethiopic Manuscript Imaging Pro/ecf (Ethloplc Manuscripts, Texts, and Studies Series
Volume 2), Eugene, Oregon: Plcwlck Publications.

Derat, Marle-Laure (2005a), “Les homelles du rol Zar’a Ya’eqob: La communication d’un
souveraln ethloplen du XV® slecle”. In: Alain Bresson / Anne-Marie Cocula / Chrlstophe
Pebarthe (eds.), L’ecriture publique du pouvo/r (Ausonlus Editions Etudes 10), Paris -
Bordeaux: Diffusion De Boccard, 45-57.

Derat, Marle-Laure (2005b), “Dabra Hayq Bstlfanos”, In: EAe ll, 24a-25fa.

Derat, Marle-Laure (2009), “Du Beg”ena au Lasta. Centre et perlpherle dans le royaume
d’Ethlople du Xlll® au XVI® slecle”, \n: Annates d’Ethiopie 24, 65-86.

Derat, Marle-Laure (2010), “Les donations du rol Lallbala. Elements pour une geographle du
royaume chretlen d’Ethlople au tournant du XU® et du Xlll® slecle”. In: Annates d’Ethiopie
25,19-42.

Deresse Ayenachew (2011), “The Southern Interests of the Royal Court of Ethiopia In the Light
of Barbar Maryam’s Ge’ez and Amharlc Manuscripts”, In: Northeast African Studies 11/2,
43-58.

Drewes, Abraham Johannes (1955), “Problemes de paleographle ethloplenne”. In: Annates
d’Ethiopie 1,121-126.

Endress, Gerhard (1982), “Handschrlftenkunde”, In: Wolfdletrlch Fischer (ed.), Grundriji der
arabischen Phitotogie, 1. Sprachwissenschaft, Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag,
271-296.

Faqada Sellase Tafarra, liqa gubd’e (2010), Tentdwiyaberdnnd masdheft azzagdgdgat (‘The
ancient manner of preparing parchment books’), Addis Ababa: Yunlbarslty Press 2002
A.M. (In Amharlc, with English “Post-face” by AnaTs Wlon, 298-304).

Ferrari, Anna (ed.) (1998), Filologia classica e filologia romanza: esperienze ecdotiche a
confronto. Attl del Convegno Roma 25-27 magglo 1995 (Incontrl dl Studio 2), Spoleto:
Centro Itallano dl Studl sull’Alto Medloevo.

Flaccadorl, Gianfranco (1993), “Blsanzlo e ll regno dl ’Aksum. Sul manoscrltto Martini etlop. 5
della Blblloteca Forteguerrlana dl Plstola”, In: Bollettino del Museo Bodoniano diParma 7,
161-199.

Flaccadorl, Gianfranco (2005a), “Ewostateans”, In: EAe ll, 464a-469o.

Flaccadorl, Gianfranco (2005b), “Ewostatewos”, In: EAe ll, 469o-472fa.

Flaccadorl, Gianfranco (2007a), “Greek Inscriptions ”, In: EAe Ml, 158o-159fa.

Flaccadorl, Gianfranco (2007b), “Ga’az Inscriptions In Ethlopla/Erltrea In medieval and modern
times”. In: EAe Ml, 163o-165o.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

Fiaccadori, Gianfranco (2012), “Per la cronologia di un atto «feudale» del negus Lalibala”, in:
Crisopoli. Bollettino del Museo Bodoniano di Parma lA (nuova ser. 2) [2013], 201-20A.

Fiaccadori, Gianfranco (201A), “Archives and libraries”, in: EAeV, 2AAa-2A8o.

Fiesoli, Giovanni (2000), Lagenesi del lachmannismo (Millennio medievale 19), Firenze: Sismel
Edizioni del Galluzzo.

Frantsouzoff, Serguei A. (2007), “Ga‘az inscriptions in South Arabia”, in: EAe III, 162o-163o.

Garima (Mamher, later Abuna Mika’el, ed.) (1925/1926), Mashafa Qedddse. Kaqadmo abbdtoc
siward siwwdrradyamattdwnebdbennd terg'^dmew, Addis Ababa [1918 ‘a.m.].

Gartner, Kurt / Krummacher, Flans-Flenrik(eds.) (2000), Zur Uberlieferung, Kritik undEdition
alter und neuerer Texte. Beitrdge des Colloquiums zum 85. Geburtstag von Werner
Schroder am 12. und 13. /Wdrz 1999/rr Alo/nz (Abhandlungen derGeistes- und Sozial-
wissenschaftlichen Klasse, Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur 2000, 2),
Stuttgart: Steiner.

Gehin, Paul (ed.) (2005), Lire le manuscritmedieval, Paris: Armand Colin.

Getatchew Flaile (1982), “On the Writings of Abba Giyorgis Saglawi from Two Unedited Miracles
of Mary”, in: Orientalia Christiana Periodica A8, 65-91.

Getatchew Flaile (1993), A catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts Microfilmed for the Ethiopian
Manuscript Microfilm Library, Addis Ababa and for the Hill Monastic Manuscript Library,
Collegeville, vol. X: Project Numbers 4001-5000, Collegeville, Minnesota: Flill Monastic
Manuscript Library, St. John’s University.

Getatchew Flaile (1996), “Ethiopic writing”, in: Peter T. Daniels / William Bright (eds.). The
world’s writing systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 569-576.

Getatchew Flaile (2003), “Mashafa barhan”, in: EAe I, 533o-53Ao.

Getatchew Flaile (2013), The Homily ofZdr’a Ya'aqob’s Mashafa Barhan on the rite of Baptism
and Religious instruction (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 653-65A,
Scriptures Aethiopici llA-115), Lovanii: In aedibus Peeters.

Getatchew Flaile / Melaku Terefe / Rundell, Roger M. / Daniel Alemu / Delamarter, Steve,
Catalogue of the Ethiopic Manuscript imaging Project. Volume 1: Codices 1-105, Magic
Scrolls 1-134 (Ethiopic Manuscripts, Texts and Studies Series Volume 1), Eugene, Oregon:
Picwick Publications.

Gonsalves, Elsa (1998), “Appunti di filologia materiale per un’edizione critica della poesia
profana di Alfonso X”, in: Ferrari 1998, A11-A27.

Gori, Alessandro (2001), “La ‘Silloge’ di Sah Zakkaryas”, in: Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei
Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche. Memorie, ser. 9^ 13/A, AA7-583.

Gori, Alessandro (2003), “La ‘Silloge’ di Sah Zakkariyas sull’Islam. Versione amarica”, in: Atti
della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche.
Memorie, ser. 9“, 16/2, 51-319.

Grieser, Fleike / Merkt, Andreas (eds.) (2009), Volksglaube im antiken Christentum. Prof Dr.
Theofried Baumeister OEM zur Emeritierung, Darmstadt: WBG [Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft].

Grohmann, Adolf (1915), “Uber den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der athiopischen Schrift”, in:
ArchivfurSchriftkunde 1/2-3 [191A-1918]/[1915], 57-87.

Flahn, Michael (2001), “On editing codices unici”, in: Francois Grimal (ed.), Les sources etle
temps. Sources and time. A colloquium. Pondicherry, 11-13 January 1997 (Publications du
Departement d’Indologie 91), Institut fran^ais de Pondichery: Ecole Fran^aise d’Extreme-
Orient, 49-62.

Alessandro Bausi

Hauler, Edmund (1900), DidascaUae Apostolorum fragmenta Veronensia latino. Accedunt
canonum qui dicuntur apostolorum etAegyptiorum reliquiae, Fasciculus prior: praefatio,
fragmenta, imagines, Leipzig: Teubner.

Heldman, Marilyn (with Stuart C. Munro-Hay, ed. Roderick Grierson) (1993), African Zion. The
sacred art of Ethiopia, New Haven / London: Yale University Press.

Heyer, Friedrich (1970), “The Teaching of Tergum In the Ethiopian Orthodox Church”, In:

Proceedings of the Third international Conference of Ethiopian Studies. Addis Ababa 1966,
ll, Addis Ababa: Institute of Ethiopian Studies, Halle Selassie 1 University, lAO-150.

Isaacson, Harunaga (2009), “Of Critical Editions and Manuscript Reproductions: Remarks
apropos of a Critical Edition of Pramdnaviniscaya Chapters 1 and 2”, In: Manuscript
Cultures Newsletter!, 13-20.

Jha, Vashlshtha Narayan (ed.) (1993), Problems of editing ancient texts (The Vrajajlvan

Indologlcal studies 1), Dehll: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Pratlsthan / Varanasi: Sole distributor,
Chaucamba Vldyabhavan.

Klelnlogel, Alexander (2007), “Variants and Invariants: The Logics of Manuscript Tradition”, In:
Pfeiffer / Kropp 2007, 259-268.

Kropp, Manfred (2011a), “Notes on Preparing a Critical Edition of the Ser'atd mdngast”. In:
Northeast African Studies 11/2,111-lAO.

Kropp, Manfred (2011b), “Zwel Fassungen der Beurkundung elnes Stlftungsakts (Klrche Darasge
Maryam, Samen 183A Oder 1838 n. Chr.)”, In: Oriens Christianus 95 [2013], 156-174.

Kropp, Manfred (2012), “The good old law. Literacy and orallty In the practice of Ethiopian royal
law”. In: Folia Orientalia 49 (= Festschrift Andrzej Zaborski), 253-267.

Kropp, Manfred (2013), “Zwel Dokumente aus dem Archlv des athloplschen Hofrlchters liq Atqu
(Erste Halfte des 19. )h. In Gondar)”, In: Peter Bruns - Heinz Otto Luthe (eds.), Orientalia
Christiana. Festschrift fur Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Gefaurtsfog (Elchstatter Beltragezum
Chrlstllchen Orient 3), Wiesbaden: Harrassowltz Verlag, 235-264.

Leroy, Jules (1960), “L’Evangellalre ethloplen du Couvent d’Abba Garlma et ses attaches avec
I’anclen artchretlen deSyrle”, In: Cahiers archeologiquesll,131-lh3.

Leroy, Jules (1968), “Un nouvel evangellalre ethloplen lllustre du monastere d’Abba Garlma”, In:
Andre Grabar (ed.), Synthronon, Art et Archeologie de la fin de I’Antiquite etdu Mayen Age
(Blbllotheque des Cahiers Archeologlques 2), Paris: Llbralrle C. Kllncksleck, 75-87.

Luslnl, Glanfrancesco (1999a), “Questlonl dl paleografla etloplca”. In: Scrittura e civilta 23,
407-417.

Luslnl, Glanfrancesco (1999b), “Scrltture documentarle etloplche (Dabra Dehuhan e Dabra
Sege, Sara’e, Eritrea)”, In: Rassegna di StudiEtiopici 42 [1998], 5-55.

Luslnl, Glanfrancesco (2002), “1 Codlcl Etloplcl del Fondo Martini nella Blblloteca Forteg-
uerrlana dl Plstola”, \n: Aethiopica 5,156-176.

Luslnl, Glanfrancesco (2004), “Coplstl e fllologl dell’Etlopla medlevale. Lo Scriptorium dl Dabra
Maryam del Sara’e (Eritrea)”, In: La Parola del Passato 59, 230-237.

Luslnl, Glanfrancesco (2005), “Philology and the Reconstruction of the Ethiopian Past”,

In: Walter Raunlg / Steffen Wenlg (eds.), Afrikas Horn. Akten derErsten interna-
tionalen Littmann-Konferenz2. bis 5. Mai2002 in Munchen (Meroltlca 22), Wiesbaden:
Harrassowltz Verlag, 91-106.

Macomber, William F. (1979), Catalogue of Ethiopian Manuscripts from Abba Garimd, Asatan
(Church of St. Mary), Axum (Church of Zion), Dabra Bizan, Dabra Ddmo, Dabra Libdnos,
Gunda Gunde, Kebrdn, Ldlibald (Church of the Savior of the World; Emmanuel Church),
Maqale, Lira, Kiddna Mehrat, Monastery of Dabra Ddgd (Church of St. Stephen), Monastery

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

of Lake Zeway, Dabra Maryam, National Library and Haiq from microfilms in the collection
of Dr. Donald Davies, De Land, Florida and Godfrey, Ontario, and of the Hill Monastic
Manuscript Library, St.John's University, Collegeville, Minnesota, Collegeville, Minn.:
Privately reproduced.

Mahari Terfe, liqa liqawent (ed.) (1955/1956), Yaqeddus Pdwlos Mashaf nebdbu
kannaterg'^dmew, Add\s kbaba [19A8 ‘a.m.].

Maniaci, Marilena (2002), Archeologia del manoscritto. Metodi, problemi, bibliografia recente.
Con contributi di Carlo Federici e di Ezio Ornato (I libri di Viella 34), Roma: Viella [repr.
2005].

Mantel-Niecko, Joanna (1987), “Some Thoughts on the Role of the Contemporary Philologist.
Based on the Experience of an Ethiopian Philologist”, in: Orientalia Suecana 33-34
[1984-1986] = Tryggve Kronholm / Eva Riad et al. (eds.). On the Dignity of Man. Oriental
and Classical Studies in Honour of FrithiofRundgren, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
International, 285-294.

Marrassini, Paolo (1981), Gadla Yohannes Mesraqawi. Vita di Yohannes I’Orientale. Edizione
critica con introduzione e traduzione annotata (Quaderni di Semitistica 10), Firenze:

Istituto di linguistica e di lingue oriental!, Universita degli Studi.

Marrassini, Paolo (1986), “Studi di Etiopistica”, in: Atti del Convegno Glistudi africanistici in
italia dagli anni '60 ad oggi. Roma, 25-27 giugno 1985, Roma: Istituto Italo-Africano,
167-173.

Marrassini, Paolo (1987), “L’edizione critica dei test! etiopici: problemi di metodo e reperti
linguistici”, in: Giancarlo Bolognesi / Vittore Pisani (eds.), Linguistica e filologia. Atti
del Vll Convegno Internazionale di Linguisti. Milano, 12-14 settembre 1984 (Sodalizio
Glottologico Milanese 18), Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 347-356.

Marrassini, Paolo (1992), “Interpunzione e fenomeni demarcativi nelle lingue semitiche”,
in: Emanuela Cresti / Nicoletta Maraschio / Luca Toschi (eds.), Storia e teoria
dell’interpunzione. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi. Firenze, 19-21 maggio 1988
(Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Italianistica), Roma: Bulzoni, 501-520.

Marrassini, Paolo (1993), Lo scettro e la croce. La campagna di ‘Amda Seyon i contra I’ifdt (1332)
(Studi Africanistici, Serie Etiopica 4), Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento
di Studi e Ricerche su Africa e Paesi Arabi.

Marrassini, Paolo (1996), “Problems of Ga‘az philology”, in: Petr Zemanek(ed.), Studies in Near
Eastern Languages and Literatures. Memorial Volume of Karel Petracek, Prague: Academy
of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Oriental Institute, 371-378.

Marrassini, Paolo (1999), “Gli apocrifi etiopici: alcune osservazioni”, in: Nello del Gatto (ed.),
Corso di perfezionamento in Storia del Cristianesimo Antico diretto da Luigi Cirillo e
Giancarlo Rinaldi. Atti. Napoli marzo-giugno 1996 (Serie Didattica 2), Napoli: E.Di.S.U.
Napoli 2 - Dipartimento di Studi Asiatic!, Istituto Universitario Orientale, 238-266.

Marrassini, Paolo (2000), “Some philological problems in the ‘Miracles’ of Gabra Manfas
Qeddus”, \n: Aethiopica 3, 46-78.

Marrassini, Paolo (2003a), “Vita”, “Omelia”, “Miracoli” del santo Gabra Manfas Qeddus

(Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 597-598, Scriptures Aethiopici 107-108),
Lovanii: In aedibus Peeters.

Marrassini, Paolo (2003b), “The Semites in Abyssinia: Onomastic and Lexicographical Notes”,
In: Leonid Kogan (ed.), Studia Semitica (Orientalia: Trudy Instituta vostocnyx kultur
III / Orientalia: Papers of the Oriental Institute III), Moscow: State University for the
Flumanitles, 141-151.

Alessandro Bausi

Marrassini, Paolo (2007), “Le discipline orlentallstlche all’lstltuto dl Studl Superlorl dl

Firenze”, In: Nlcoletta Maraschlo (ed.), Firenze e la lingua italianafra nazione e Europa.

Atti del convegno distudi. Firenze, 27-28 magglo 200A, Firenze: Firenze University Press,
157-16A.

Marrassini, Paolo (2008a), review of Rainer Voigt (ed.). Die dthiopischen Studien im
20. jahrhundert/ Ethiopian Studies in the 20th Century. Akten der internationalen
dthiopischen Tagung. Berlin 22. bis 24. Jull 2000 (Semltlca et Semltohamltlca Berollnensla
2), Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2003, In: Bibliotheca Orientalis 65/1-2, 267-274.

Marrassini, Paolo (2008b), “Salient Features of Philology: The Science of Establishing

Primary Sources”, In: Ethiopian Philology. Bulletin of Philological Society of Ethiopia 1/1
[November 2008], 4-12.

Marrassini, Paolo (2009), “Problems In Critical Edition and the State of Ethiopian Philology”, In:
lournal of Ethiopian Studies 42, 25-68.

Marrassini, Paolo (2014), Storia e leggenda dell’Etiopia tardoantica. Le iscrizionireali aksumite.
Con una appendice di Rodolfo Fattovich su “La civilta aksumita: aspetti archeologici” e una
nota editoriale di Alessandro Bausi (Testl del Vlclno Orlente Antlco), Brescia: Paldela.

McCrlndle, John W. (1897), The Christian Topography of Cosmos, an Egyptian monk (Works
Issued by Flakluyt Society 98), London: Printed for the Flakluyt Society.

Mellors, John / Parsons, Anne (2002a), Ethiopian Bookmaking (Bookmaking In Rural Ethiopia In
the Twenty-First Century), London: New Cross Books.

Mellors, John / Parsons, Anne (2002b), Scribes of South Go/rdar (Bookmaklng In Rural Ethiopia
In the Twenty-First Century), London: New Cross Books.

Mellors, John / Parsons, Anne (2003), “Manuscript and Book Production In South Gondar In the
Twenty First Century”, In: Blrhanu Teferra / Pankhurst 2003,185-199.

Mercler, Jacques (2000), “La pelnture ethloplenne a I’epoque axoumlte et au XVllP slecle”. In:
Academie des inscriptions & Belles Lettres. Comptes Rendus, 35-71.

Mercler, Jacques (2009), “Restoration of holy treasures and Installation of a new museum”.

In: Jacques Mercler / Daniel Selfemlchael Feleke (eds.), Ethiopian Church. Treasures and
Faith, [Paris:] Ethiopian OrthodoxTewahldo Church [Archange Mlnotaure], 108-124.

Minkowski, Chaim (1999), “Further on editing Rabbinic texts”. In: The Jewish Quarterly Review
90/1-2,137-149.

Muller, Walter W. (2007), “Sabalc Inscriptions In Ethiopia and Eritrea”, In: EAe Ml, 156o-158o

Munro-Flay, Stuart C. (1991), Aksum. An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity, Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.

Nosnltsln, Denis (2007), “Fllstorlcal Records from Ethiopia: ATrlllngual Document From Asbl
Dabra Gannat Sallase, Tagray”, In: Studies of the Department of African Languages
and Cultures 41 (2007) = Proceedings of the Workshop “European Schools of Ethiopian
Studies; Poland & Germany”. October 18-20, 2006, Warsaw University, Warsaw, 17-47.

Nosnltsln, Denis (2012), “Ethiopian Manuscripts and Ethiopian Manuscript Studies: A brief
overview and evaluation”. In: Gazette du livre medieval 58/1,1-16.

Nosnltsln, Denis (2013a), Churches and Monasteries of Tagray. A Survey of Manuscript
Collections (Supplement to Aethloplca 1), Wiesbaden: Flarrassowltz Verlag.

Nosnltsln, Denis (2013b), Ecclesiastical Landscape of North Ethiopia (Supplement to Aethloplca
2), Wiesbaden: Flarrassowltz Verlag.

Nosnltsln, Denis (2013c), “The Charters of the Four Gospels Book of Dabra Ma'so”, In: Nosnltsln
2013b, 118-131.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

Pasquali, Giorgio (1954), Storia della tradizione e critica del testa, Firenze: Le Monnier [2'’'*
edition; 1®'edition 1934; repr. 1962; Milano: Mondadori, 1974; Firenze: Casa Editrice Le
Lettere, 1988].

Peacock, Andrew (2007), “The Mediaeval Manuscript Tradition of Bal‘amT’s Version of
al-Tabarfs History”, in: Pfeiffer / Kropp 2007, 93-105.

Pecere, Oronzo (1998), “Una pista di attualita nelle ricerche del filologo classico”, in: Ferrari
1998, 507-515.

Pfeiffer, Judith / Kropp, Manfred (eds.) (2007), Theoretical Approaches to the Transmission
and Edition of Oriental Manuscripts. Proceedings of a symposium held in istanbul.

March 28-30, 2001 (Beiruter Texte und Studien 111), Beirut: Ergon Verlag Wurzburg in
Kommission.

Proverbio, Delio Vania / Fiaccadori, Gianfranco (2004), “Un nuovo testimone etiopico della
Rivelazione di Pietro a Clemente: il ms. 121 del Monumento Nazionale di Casamari
(Veroli)”, in: Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti. Classe di scienze
morali, storiche e filologiche, ser. 9^, 15/4, 665-693.

Reeve, Michael D. (2000), “Cuius in usum? Recent and future editing”, in: The Journal of Roman
Studies 90,196-206.

Samuel WoldeYohannes / Nosnitsin, Denis (2003), “Basalota Mika’el”, in: EAe I, 493fa-494fa.

Schenke, Gesa (2010a), “Ein koptischer Textzeuge der Acta Phileae”, in: Flermann Knuf /

Christian Leitz / Daniel von Recklinghausen (eds.), Honisoit quimol y pense. Studien zum
pharaonischen, griechisch-rdmischen und spatantiken Agypten zu Ehren von Heinz-Josef
Thissen (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 194), Leuven / Paris / Walpole, MA: Unitgeverij
Peeters and Department of Oosterse Studies, 609-615.

Schenke, Gesa (2010b), “P.Kbln 492: Das Martyrium des Phileas von Thmuis”, in: Ch. Armoni
et al., Kolner Papyri (P.Koln) Vol. 12 (Papyrologica Coloniensia 7/12. Abhandlungen der
Nordrhein-Westfalischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), Paderborn / Munchen / Wien /
Zurich: Schbningh, 188-192.

Schneider, Roger (1983), “Les origines de I’ecriture ethiopienne”, in: Stanislav Segert / Andras
J.E. Bodrogligeti (eds.), Ethiopian Studies Dedicated to WolfLeslau on the occasion of
his seventy-fifth birthday November 14th, 1981 by friends and colleagues, Wiesbaden:
Flarrassowitz Verlag, 412-416.

Schneider, Roger (1986), “La premiere attestation de I’alphabet ethiopien”, in: Comptes
Rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Etudes Chamito-Semitiques (GLECS) 24-28/2
[1979-1984], 239-241.

Schneider, Roger (1995), “A propos de la vocalisation de I’ecriture ethiopienne”, in: Comptes
Rendus du Groupe Linguistique d’Etudes Chamito-Semitiques (GLECS) 31,107-108.

Scialabba, Marzia / Palma, Marco (eds.), Manoscritti nella provincia di Siracusa (Quaderni della
Soprintendenza per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Siracusa, Servizio per i Beni Biblio-
grafici e Archivistici, Cataloghi 2), Siracusa: Lombardi editori.

Sergew Liable Selassie (1981), Bookmaking in Ethiopia, Leiden: Karstens Drukkers B.V.

Shiferaw Bekele (2008), “Interface between Philology and History: The Search for Medievalist
Historians”, in: Ethiopian Philology. Bulletin of Philological Society of Ethiopia 1/1
[November 2008], 47-55.

Simon, Jean (1931-1932), “Repertoire des bibliotheques publiques et privees contenant des
manuscrits ethiopiens”, in: Revue de I’Orient Chretien 28,178-193.

Alessandro Bausi

Sobania, Neal W. / Silverman, Raymond A. (dlrs.), The Parchment Makers: an Ancient Art in
Present-Day Ethiopia, 1/2” VMS videocassette, color, 19 min. Hope College (Holland,
Michigan) and Sola Scrlptura (Orlando, Florida).

Stussl, Alfredo (2006), Fondamenti di critica testuale. Nuova edizione (Manuall, Fllologla e
crltlca letterarla), Bologna; ll Mullno [2"'* edition].

Szlrmal, j.A. (1999), The Archaeology of Medieval Bookbindings, Aldershot: Ashgate.

Tedros Abraha (2001), La lettera ai Romani. Testo e commentari della versione Etiopica
(Athloplstlsche Forschungen 57), Wiesbaden: Harrassowltz Verlag.

Tedros Abraha (200A), The Ethiopic Version of the Letter to the Hebrews (Studl e testl 419), Cltta
del Vatlcano: Blblloteca Apostollca Vatlcana.

Tedros Abraha (2007), ll Gddl di Abuna Demyanos santo eritreo (XiV/XVsec.). Edizione del testo
etiopico e traduzione italiana (Patrologla Orlentalls 50/2, fasc. 223), Turnhout: Brepols.

Tedros Abraha (2009), / Gddl di Abund Tdwdldd-Mddehn e di Abund Vittore. Edizione del testo
etiopico e traduzione italiana (Patrologla Orlentalls 51/2, fasc. 227), Turnhout: Brepols.

Thaker, jayant Premshankar (Gen. ed. Mukund Laljl Wadekar) (2002), Manuscriptology and text
criticism, Vadodara: Oriental Institute.

Tlmpanaro, Sebastlano (2005), The genesis of Lachmann’s method (ed. and tr. Glenn W. Most),
Chicago / London: The University of Chicago Press.

Uhllg, Slegbert (1988), Athiopische Paldographie (Athloplstlsche Forschungen 22), Stuttgart:
Steiner.

Uhllg, Slegbert (1990), Introduction to Ethiopian paleography {Athloplstlsche Forschungen 28),
Stuttgart: Steiner.

Uhllg, Slegbert / Bausi, Alessandro (2007a), “Manuscripts”, In: EAe Ml, 738o-744a.

Uhllg, Slegbert / Bausi, Alessandro (2007b), “Palaeography”, In: EAe Ml, 101a-104b.

Wechsler, Michael G. (2005), Evangelium lohannis Aethiopicum (Corpus Scrlptorum

Chrlstlanorum Orlentallum 617, Scriptures Aethloplcl 109), Lovanll: In aedlbus Peeters.

Wlon, AnaTs (2004), “An Analysis of 17th-Century Ethiopian Pigments”, In: Manuel joao
Ramos / Isabel Boavlda (eds.). The Indigenous and the Foreign in Christian Ethiopian
Art. On Portuguese-Ethiopian Contacts in the 16th-17th Centuries. Papers from the Fifth
International Conference on the History of Ethiopian Art. Arrablda, 26-30 November 1999,
Aldershot, Hants / Burlington: Ashgate, 103-112.

Wlon, AnaTs (2009), “Le Liber Aksumae selon le manuscrlt Bodleian Bruce 93: le plus anclen
temoln d’un projet hlstorlographlque sans cesse reactive”. In: Oriens Christianas 93,
135-171.

Wlon, AnaTs (2011a), “Promulgation and Registration of Royal Ethiopian Acts In Behalf of

Political and Religious Institutions (Northern Ethiopia, Sixteenth Century)”, In: Northeast
African Studies 11/2, 59-84.

Wlon, AnaTs (2011b), “La langue des actes ethloplens a I’epreuve de la modernlte: un recuell
de chartes royales date de 1943 (egllse de Mahdara Maryam, Bagemder)”, In: Jean-Marie
Bertrand / Pierre Bollley / jean-Phlllppe Genet / Pauline Schmitt Pantel (eds.), Langue et
Histoire (Homme et Soclete 39), Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 123-152.

Wlon, AnaTs (2012), Paradis pour une reine. Le monastere de Qoma Fasilddds, Ethiopie, xviH
siecle (Histoire anclenne et medlevale 112), Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.

Wlon, AnaTs / Bertrand, Paul (2011), “Production, Preservation, and Use of Ethiopian Archives
(Fourteenth-Eighteenth Centuries)”, In: Northeast African Studies 11/2, vll-xvl.

Writing, Copying, Translating: Ethiopia as a Manuscript Culture

Wion, AnaTs / Derat, Marie-Laure / Bosc-Tiesse, Claire (2006a), Inventaire des bibliotheques
etdes catalogues de manuscrits ethiopiens, Paris <http://www.ext.upmc.fr/urfist/
menestrel/medethiopie.htm>.

Wion, AnaTs / Derat, Marie-Laure / Bosc-Tiesse, Claire (2006b), “Les manuscrits ethiopiens sur
«Menestrel»”, in: Gazette du Livre Medieval A8 [printemps 2006], 62.

Wion, AnaTs / Derat, Marie-Laure / Bosc-Tiesse, Claire (2008), Inventaire des biblio¬
theques etdes catalogues de manuscrits ethiopiens. <http://www.menestrel.fr/spip.
php?rubrique694> (seen on July 10th, 2009).

Witkam, Jan Just (1988), “Establishing the stemma: fact or fiction?”, in: Manuscripts of the
Middle Easts, 88-101.

Witkam, Jan Just (2013), “The Philologist’s Stone. The Continuing Search for the Stemma”, in:
Comparative Oriental Manuscript Studies Newsletter 6, 3A-38.

Wolska-Conus, Wanda (ed.) (1968), Cosmos Indicopleustes. Topographie chretienne, I. Livres
I-IV (Sources chretiennes 141), Paris: Les Editions du Cerf.

Zanutto, Silvio (1932), Bibliografia etiopica in continuazione alia «Bibliografia etiopica» di
G. Fumagalli. Secondo contributo: Manoscritti etiopici, Roma: A cura del Ministero delle
Colonie, Sindacato Italiano Arti Grafiche Editore.

Zufferey, Francois (1998), “Philologie materielle et codicologie: I’enseignement des
chansonniers proven^aux”, in: Ferrari 1998, 429-442.

Zuurmond, Rochus (1989), Novum Testamentum Aethiopice: The Synoptic Gospels, Part I:
General introduction. Part II: Edition of the Gospel of Mark (Athiopistische Forschungen
27), Stuttgart: Steiner.

Zuurmond, Rochus (2001), Novum Testamentum Aethiopice. The Gospel of St. Matthew {Aeth\o-
pistische Forschungen 55), Wiesbaden: Flarrassowitz Verlag.

Florian Sobieroj

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery:
Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

In the initial part of this paper I will introduce some basic general concepts related
to Arabic manuscript culture in general, such as material aspects of manuscript
production (writing supports, book bindings, etc.) and textual characteristics of
the manuscripts (means of orientation, colophons, para- and micro-texts, etc.).
I will then concentrate on some features which may be considered specific to
Arabic manuscripts produced on the western, southern and eastern peripheries
of the Islamic culture zone, i.e. in the Maghrib, Yemen and China. As the field of
Sino-Arabic codicology is one of the least known, in this paper I have devoted
more space to Arabic manuscripts in China than to the other two peripheral
regions. The paper aims at drawing attention to the existence of a large spectrum
of codicological types which developed on the margins of the Islamic world, in
some cases under the influence of a host culture.

1 Arabic manuscript culture

The term ‘Arabic manuscript culture’ refers to manuscripts written in the Arabic
language in Arabic script. This culture should be distinguished from those, mostly
showing Islamic influence, which use a (modified) version of the Arabic script,
for other languages. These include (to mention only a few examples) Persian or
Turkish, or the Chinese xiaoerjing.

Geographically, the culture of Arabic manuscripts extends from the Maghrib
at the Western periphery of Dar al-isldm (the Islamic world, which here coincides,
generally speaking, with the Arab world), to the borders of Iran and beyond, also
including those non-Arab countries which were subject to the influence of Islam,
and which have used Arabic as a sacred language.

Chronologically, the beginnings of Arabic manuscript culture predate the
advent of Islam. Pieces of northern Arabic writing were inscribed on stone,
bones, wood, and other relatively long-lasting materials long before the Hijra,
the flight of the Prophet Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. After periods of time
in which papyrus and parchment were in use as the main vnriting supports, from
the middle of the 9* century paper became the preferred surface for manuscript
writing. Arabic manuscript culture gradually declined with the introduction of
printing technology, which, as far as Egypt is concerned, is connected with the

Florian Sobieroj

expedition to the Nile valley launched by Napoleon at the end of the 18* century.
But even after the import of this technological revolution, manuscripts continued
to be produced in the Arab countries w?ell into the 20* century, even on the basis
of printed text editions.

The great number of extant manuscripts showrs that Arabic cultures made
extensive use of writing as a medium for transmitting texts. However, the scribes
did not trust this medium blindly. In order to overcome the textual corruption
inescapable in the process of copying, they relied on oral transmission and
checked the manuscripts according to dictation by an authorized teacher. Three
peculiar features strike a modern reader of Arabic or Islamic manuscripts: 1) a
tendency to provide certification of transmission of the text through chains of
authorized transmitters {isndd) and hearing certificates; 2) elaborate commentar¬
ies written between the lines and in the margins; and 3) the presence of signifi¬
cant variation in the transmitted texts.

1.1 Writing supports

The writing surfaces employed in the Arab world for manufacturing manuscripts
were papyrus, parchment and paper.

1.1.1 Papyrus

The earliest material used in the Arab world as a writing support was papyrus. The
word ‘papyrus’ denotes a reed plant which grows in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Sicily,
and Syria, and also the vnriting material made from it. In Arabic it is designated
by words such as qirtds, wamq al-qasab or waraq al-bardl. Papyrus was used for
various purposes such as letters, books, contracts, and tax registers. It was used
until the 4*/10* century when competition from paper became overwhelming.
Papyrus manufacture died out by the 5*/ll* century and only scattered remnants
of manuscripts written on papyrus in Arabic script have survived. Although the
papyrus roll, manufactured from glued sheets of papyrus, was used in the first
centuries of the hijra, the codex became the dominant form for book-texts from
the beginning of the Islamic era. Some manuscripts were also produced in the
form of rotuli, i.e. rolls, where the text runs parallel to the axis (i.e. perpendicular
to the length of the roll). As papyrus could be washed and reused, palimpsests
have survived. Papyrus was also turned into cartonnage (hard cardboard made of

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

scraps of papyrus combined with gesso) for boards used in manuscript bindings
(cf. Deroche 2000, 35-36).^

1.1.2 Parchment

Since parchment’s raw material is of animal origin, unlike papyrus, it could be
produced anywhere. The technology of parchment making was relatively simple.
The Arabic terms for parchment are raqq, riqq, and jild. Parchment is defined as
skin of an animal prepared for writing, with preparation implying a process of
unhairing, tanning and drying. Most commonly, sheepskins were used, and less
often those of other animals such as goat, calf, donkey or gazelle. Parchment
has flesh and hair sides, the former generally being whiter and softer than the
latter. Manuscripts copied on parchment are almost exclusively codices as both
surfaces, recto and verso, were equally available to the scribe. Although parch¬
ment was the preferred medium in manuscript production prior to the triumph of
paper, only few specimens of non-fragmentary parchment codices have survived
from the Islamic world. When paper became vddely available, parchment was
still used in the central lands of the Islamic world from the 4^/10*^ century, and
in the Muslim West manuscript copyists used it alongside paper until the
century and even later. Like papyrus, parchment was reused (and called tirs) as
the material was durable and the traces of an earlier use could be removed by
scraping and washing (cf. Deroche 2000, 49).^

1.1.3 Paper

The Arabic words for ‘paper’ are qirtds or waraq-, and the Persian term kaghadh is
found in Arabic as kdghid or kdghad. The latter, a Soghdian loan word, is reminis¬
cent of the fact that the Soghdians, an Iranian ethnic group, propagated paper¬
making techniques through their contacts with Chinese Central Asia.

In the century, the expansion of Islam brought the Arab conquerors into
contact with the Chinese civilization of the Middle Kingdom. The repercussions
of the military encounter between the Abbasids under their general Ziyad b. Salih
and the Chinese during the battle at the river Talas in 751 in modern Kyrgyzstan^

1 For papyrus cf. Gacek 2009,193-194.

2 For parchment cf. Gacek 2009,195-196.

3 For the historical context of the battle, seen from a Chinese perspective, see Baike quanshu
2007, 71.

Florian Sobieroj

were far-reaching. The capture of Chinese papermakers caused scribes in the
Islamic world to gradually adopt paper for manuscript production. Paper mills
were set up in Samarqand by Chinese craftsmen. The introduction of paper to
Baghdad followed soon, with Egypt turning to paper by the B'd/gth century (paper
mills are attested in Fustat). Papers were classified by the names of cities where
mills were set up: Baghdadi, Samarqandi, etc.

Great care was given to the preparation and outward appearance of paper
used for manuscripts. It was supposed to be translucent and capable of receiving
writing without soaking up the ink: hence it was scrupulously smoothed. Paper
may be divided into materials with or without water-marks. Starting from the 13*
century, European paper became watermarked when a novel technique of sewing
an emblem onto the wire screen was developed in Italy in 1264. By the 17* century,
the majority of manuscripts in the Arab lands, including Turkey and the Maghrib,
were copied on imported watermarked paper (Pedersen 1984, 60-67).'*

1.2 Bookbinding

Early Qur’anic codex manuscripts are believed to have been held together by two
wooden boards. From this binding a bookcover in the form of a leather wrapper
developed. It is possible however, that both types of binding coexisted (Gaeck
2009, 25). The sheets became united with the wooden boards by means of a
spine. The loose spine divided by raised transverse bands used in Europe was not
employed (Pedersen 1984,104).

In the early period of Islamic bookbinding, the wooden boards were covered
with leather. Subsequently, they were replaced by pasteboard made by pasting
together sheets of paper. The customary binding was not merely a piece of leather
carrying the spine and both sides. The leather on the back cover of the book
extends over the side to form a flap and is folded inward under the front page of
the volume where it rests. The flap, which serves to protect the book, by virtue of
its flexibility easily tears off and in many manuscript codices it is actually missing.

In earlier manuscript codices, the surface of the leather is ruled with lines
that form a large rectangle which fills the inner part of the board and is sur¬
rounded by one or more borders. Within these, often divided into smaller rect¬
angles, there may be geometric patterns of lines and dots. The leather is brown in
various shades, but may partly be gilded or coloured. The pattern embellishing

4 On paper see also Gacek 2009,186-193.

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

it is produced by blind tooling which is done with a wheel and small individual
stamps.

In the late Timurid period (around 1500), a pattern emerges in which the
bookcover is dominated by a central medallion which may be almond-shaped.
The medallion is usually covered with tendrils and arabesques. It may also be
an oval formed around a circle or be completely circular (Pedersen 1984, 106).
During the Mongol period (the early Id'** century), in decorating the surface of
the boards single stamps were supplemented by the introduction of metal stamp¬
ing plates. Ornamentation came to assume Persian designs. A new element intro¬
duced into book binding at that time was lacquered binding, a Chinese technique
transplanted to Persia (Pedersen 1984,110).^

1.3 Tables of contents and other means of orientation

The Arabic manuscript tradition developed certain devices that aim to help a
reader to orient himself within the text(s). These first of all include tables of con¬
tents and chapter headings.

1.3.1 Tables of contents

Tables of contents (Arabic fahms, flhris, flhrist) may be found in Arabic manu¬
scripts in various places: on the flyleaves or, very seldom, on the inside of the
front cover of the binding or at the end of the text. If written in these places,
the contents are more likely to have been entered by the user than the copyist.
The contents may also be prefaced to the text - in this case by the scribe - on
pages immediately preceding its beginning. Finally, a list of chapters, i.e. kitdbs
and tabs, may also be integrated in the body of the text following the basmalah
{bi’sm Allah ‘in the name of God’), hamdalah (praise of God) and tasliya (eulogy
of the Prophet) which are the conventional formulae that any Islamic text ideally
starts with. In this case, the table of contents stems from the author.*’ The preface,
whether it includes the tables of contents or not, is introduced by the formula

5 On bookbinding see Gacek 2009, 22-33.

6 An example for a manuscript in which the table of the contents is embedded in the preface
(fol. 4r-v) is the undated codex BSB Cod. arab. 1551 (Qadi ‘yad d, K. al-Shifd’). Unless specified
otherwise, the Arabic manuscripts referred to in this paper are owned by the Bayerische Staats-
hibliothek Miinchen and carry the call number BSB Cod. arab. x. (the abbreviation BSB is hence¬
forth omitted).

Florian Sobieroj

amma ba’d ‘and then’, and may also mention the author’s name, the title of the
text, and the reason which led the author to compose it {sabab al-ta lif'the reason
of composition’). All these Arabic expressions may be highlighted by the use of
red colour. The rubrics attract the reader’s attention and help identify the author
and the title of his text. The title and sometimes the author’s name may, alter¬
natively or additionally, be written in a head-piece {‘unwan), drawn above the
basmalah at the very opening of the manuscript.

The contents may be condensed on a single folio-page but may also extend
over a number of pages. Often, the chapter headings are inscribed in rectangu¬
lar panels which may be arranged in two or more columns. Usually, the titles of
kitab’s (‘books’) and bab’s (‘chapters’) given in the table of contents include ref¬
erence numbers which relate to the folio numbers or to the volume’s pagination,
the latter likely to originate not from the scribe but from the hand of a user. In
some cases, the contents prove to be very important, as they may provide biblio¬
graphical data not found in the text or texts referred to: e.g. variant titles.^

1.3.2 Chapter headings

In Arabic manuscripts, chapter headings which mark the beginning of a bab (lit¬
erally: ‘gate’, i.e. chapter) are very common. These headings, particularly in texts
on Islamic law (fiqh), may also be entitled kitdb ‘book’ (e.g. kitdb al-taham ‘book
of ritual purity’ which regularly constitutes the first chapter in the legal tracts of
the schools of Sunni Islamic law.) The kitdb’s or bdb’s may again be subdivided
into passages (Arabic/as/), and a passage may be broken up in turn into units that
carry headings, or are introduced by expressions such as qism (part), naw‘ (type),
mabhath (subject of discussion), etc.

In carefully executed manuscripts the headings may not only be found within
the text but may also be vnritten on the margins. The margins themselves can also
be filled with commentaries, corrections and collation notes, as well as vdth signs
denoting text divisions.® If the headings are written with red ink within the text,
they are usually also highlighted analogously in the margins.

7 The beginning of the extraordinarily rich composite (multi-text) manuscript Cod. arab. 1135
which contains more than 40 texts in Arabic, Turkish, and Persian, includes tables of contents
which not only mention alternative titles but also those not reflected in the texts at all.

8 Signs denoting the divisions of a text into which it is sectioned by length of the text irrespective
of its chapter/verse division, i.e. in halves {nisf), quarters (rub) or thirtieth ijuz) parts, are found
in Qur’an manuscripts (and prints).

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

1.4 Colophons

Ideally, the Arabic text in the manuscript ends with the copyist’s colophon, which
is immediately recognizable by virtue of its shape (usually triangular). The colo¬
phon includes words of the scribe usually written in a few lines of decreasing
length or - less frequently - in a few lines of equal length (e.g. Cod. arab. 1635)
which follow the explicit of the author’s text. Since it also serves a decorative
purpose, the colophon may be written in red ink (e.g. Cod. arab. 1626, a ShTi man¬
uscript), or its lines may be marked with red dots placed between the semantic (or
prosodic) units. The latter is most common when the colophon - in continuation
of the end lines of the author’s text - is written in rhymed prose.

As a rule, the colophon includes the copyist’s name, the date of completion
of the copy and sometimes the name of the place where the copying was done.
The interface between the author’s text and the scribe’s copy may be introduced
by words such as tamma naskhuhu oxfaragha min naskhihi ‘he has completed his
copy’ or qala kdtibuhu ‘he who copied this said’, whilst the name of the scribe
is often preceded by the formula ‘aid yad ‘[written] by the hand of (so-and-so)’.

Occasionally, the scribe also gives some details concerning the manuscript
from which he made his copy® and its relationship to the author’s autograph.^” In
the interface between explicit and colophon, or in the context of a description of
the relationship between the scribe’s exemplar and the author’s copy, the copyist
may mention the author’s name and title of the work copied. Such information is
of particular value in the case of a manuscript which is incomplete at the begin¬
ning where we would usually find these bibliographical details.

More often however, the scribe gives some information about the process
of his own work. He may mention that he copied the manuscript for his own
purposes {li-nafsihi) and accordingly designate himself as its owner (Cod. arab.
1643), or he may say that he stood in the service of someone who employed him to
produce the copy.^^ The scribe may not only mention a date to indicate when he

9 In Cod. arab. 1483, a manuscript dated 1301/1884 and containing 259 leaves, the scribe men¬
tions that the author needed 5 Vi months until he completed his work.

10 E.g., in the Maghribi manuscript Cod. arab. 1641, the scribe mentions that he copied the text
from a manuscript which had been copied from the autograph. The colophon of Cod. arab. 1375,
produced in 1636, includes the claim that the manuscript was copied directly from the autograph
of the author, al-Baqari (d. 1699).

11 E.g. Cod. arab. 1612, dated 1581; Cod. arab. 1606, produced in Qars by a scribe in the service of
a scholar from Van in Anatolia, dated 1751.

Florian Sobieroj

86 -

completed the work of copying but may also state when he began it, thus allow¬
ing us to work out the duration of the time he spent on the project/^

The colophon often includes prayers in which God is asked to grant forgive¬
ness to the scribe, his parents and grandparents (Cod. arab. 1635, see Fig. 1) as
well as to all Muslims, male and female, living and dead (Cod. arab. 1642,1650).
Often, prayers are also extended to Muhammad, the Prophet, his family and com¬
panions (Cod. arab. 1635) in which context the scribe may express his need of the
Prophet’s intercession as protection against hellfire (Cod. arab. 1680). It is not
uncommon that the colophon carries over to a stanza of poetic verses, copied by
the scribe and sometimes maybe even composed by him.^^ In these, constituting
the most common theme, the reader’s forbearance is solicited as regards any mis¬
takes he may detect while studying the scribe’s copy (e.g. Cod. arab. 1652). The

Fig. 1: The colophon often includes prayers in which God is asked to grant forgiveness to the
scrihe, his parents and grandparents. Munchen, BSB Cod. arah. 1635.

12 The colophon of Cod. arab. 1642, dated 1130/1717 and containing 163 leaves (cf. Sobieroj 2010,
no. 308), betrays that the copyist spent three years until completing his work.

13 Cf. Weisweiler 1935,101-120; also Schubert / Wiirsch 2001, 574-576.

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

latter verses form part of a standard repertoire which shows an astonishingly
wide variety of motifs.

Giving the time at which the copy was completed, the scribe may mention the
full date including week-day, day of the month, name of the month as well as the
year after the Prophet’s hijra, or he may restrict himself to mentioning the year
only. Sometimes the year is given without thousand or even without hundreds,
shortened to three or two digits (the century has to be added by the informed
reader), e.g. 195 = [1]195 (Cod. arab. 1124 [Sobieroj 2007, no. 67]), 81 = [10]81 (Cod.
arab. 1135 [op. cit., no. 78], fol. 69v), 82=[10]82 (Cod. arab. 1135, fol. 120v).^'‘ To avoid
any ambiguities which can easily arise due to the nature of Arabic script (especially
when words are written without diacritical points) the scribe may mention the year
of copying both in words and in numbers (e.g. Cod. arab. 1648). The name indicat¬
ing the place where the copy was completed may be restricted to a town or village,
or the scribe may specify that he executed the copying in a particular mosque (Cod.
arab. 1642), teaching institution {madmsa) or Sufi convent (Cod. arab. 1612), etc.

Finally, the colophon may also include notes by the scribe on the collation
procedure to which he subjected his copy. In the manuscript dated 1235/1820, Cod.
arab. 1690, the text of a commentary on the famous Hizb al-Nawawi is followed
by critical remarks of the scribe, IsmaTl b. Hajj Sulayman al-Divrighi al-Dimashqi,
who complains about the difficulties he encountered in the collation of his copy
due to philological incompetence^^ he attributed to the scribe of his exemplar.^*’

2 Maghrib), Yemen) and Arabic manuscripts of
Chinese provenance

Arabic manuscripts were also produced in the marginal areas of the Islamic world
and, as far as the Chinese case is concerned, in a precarious interaction with
the host culture. These peripheral manifestations of Arabic manuscript culture
cannot be treated exhaustively here. The Maghribi, Yemeni and Chinese Arabic
manuscript cultures are only adduced as examples. Other marginal and often
marginalized manifestations, like those found for example in East Africa, are of
equal importance.

14 Shortened dates of this kind are more commonly found in owners’ marks rather than in colo¬
phons, e.g. [1]255, [12]69 (Cod. arab. 1820), [1]191 (Cod. arab. 1811).

15 Lam yutqin al-kitaha bal halagha fl tahriflhd (‘not only did he not master writing but he even
went to extremes in distorting if, fol. 40v).

16 For colophons cf. Gacek 2009, 71-76.

Florian Sobieroj

2.1 Maghribi manuscripts

Manuscripts produced in the Muslim West, comprising North Africa and the part
of the Iberian Peninsula which had come under the rule of Islam, show a number
of peculiarities. Kairouan and Cordoba assumed a central role in the beginnings of
Arabic manuscript culture in the Muslim West, the earliest extant Maghribi manu¬
scripts being dated second half of the 3^/9111 century (Deroche 2004, 68 ).

2.1.1 Material aspects of the MaghribT manuscript books

The specific characteristics of Maghribi manuscript books may first be seen in
the composition of the codex. The gatherings or quires (Arabic: kurrasd) brought
together to form the book in the Middle East typically consist of 10 sheets
{quinion). In the Maghrib, on the other hand, greater diversity prevails. Quires
of 8 ,10 or even 12 sheets were used by the artisans. Often, however, a quire of 6
sheets {ternion) is found in the region, representing a formula which had enjoyed
the favour of the Jewish scribes in Spain (Deroche 2004, 77). This opens a ques¬
tion which influences had exerted themselves upon peripheral Arabic manu¬
script culture in the Maghrib.

Another specific trait of Maghribi manuscripts is continued use of parchment
long after it had been replaced by paper in the eastern part of the Muslim world
(Deroche 2004, 77). Even though paper production was well known in
century Ifriqiyya (modern Tunisia) and paper was already widely used as the
writing support, in the Muslim West unlike the East Qur’an manuscripts contin¬
ued to be copied on parchment until the 9**’/15**' century.

2.1.2 Maghribi type of the Arabic script

The Maghribi type of Arabic script which prevailed in books and documents of
the West for ten centuries appears to the eye to be more angular than the eastern
Naskhi styles. Its angularity may be explained by its derivation from a Kufi script,
as some scholars have maintained.^^

Qne of the most salient features of the Maghribi type of script is the pointing
of letters/d’ and qaf, which differs from that of the eastern scripts. The consonan¬
tal letter/d’ has a dot below, while the letter qdf has a dot above. Some further

17 Octave Houdas, Essai surl'ecriture maghrehine (1886); quoted in Deroche 2004, 75.

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

peculiarities of the Maghribi scripts may be summed up as follows; The letters sad
and dad are usually conspicuously elongated and discernibly big. The Niin at the
end of the word is often written half open, and likewise appears rather large. The
letter dal, which sometimes resembles kdf, can be easily confused when written
in round shape with the letter rd’ or final yd’. The descender of the letter Idm in
final position is written as a rounded semi-circle. The medial sin is also conspicu¬
ous, with its ascender written with a high initial stroke. Quite common in the
Maghribi type is the hamza (the sign representing a glottal stop) which in order to
render madda (a sign above the alif used to represent the hamza + alif sequence,
e.g. in words like dkhiran ‘finally’) is prefaced as a separate letter to initial alif
(e.g. Cod. arab. 1641). Some of these graphic peculiarities are ancient and may
be traced back to the and even 1^77* centuries. Deroche 2004, 80f. men¬

tions as example letter td ’/zd ’ with its oblique upstroke or final alif which extends
below the base-line.^®

2.1.3 Colours and devices for structuring text

Another important characteristic of the Maghribi manuscripts is the generous use
of coloured inks which strikes the eye as soon as the codex is opened. The gamut
of colours used was far wider than in the East. Here red, blue and yellow alternate
with black (Deroche 2004, 78). The main text is usually written with a brownish
black ink; but (analogously with the eastern Arabic manuscripts) if the base or
source text is supposed to be commented on in the body of the manuscript, this
base text is highlighted in red (e.g. Cod. arab. 1689).

Red ink is also employed for the verse markers; the “drops” (or dots) which
structure the rhymed prose of the introduction, e.g. in Cod. arab. 1689, a manu¬
script of recent production.^® Red is used in this manuscript for chapter headings
(e.g. a heading carrying the title tatimma ‘continuation’) and to indicate literary
sources quoted by the author (e.g. wa-qdl al-Suyuti, ‘Al-Suyuti said’). Quite incon¬
sistently, greenish yellow was used to introduce the same quotation only a few
pages later, where red continues to be used for headings and to indicate liter¬
ary sources. Qn the whole, however, red predominates over yellow or any other
colour.

18 For a meticulous analysis of the forms found in Maghribi writing cf. Boogert 1989, 30-43; also
Gacek 2009,147-149.

19 The manuscript contains a commentary by a Sudanese author (13*''/19‘*' c.) on a versification
of a work by al-Juwayni (d. 478/1085) on Shafi'i legal philosophy.

Florian Sobieroj

In the undated Maghribi manuscript Cod. arab. 2635/9, (Fig. 2) the text is
structured by the use of highlighted words and single letters which are written
disproportionately large in red or bold black.

,}..,!. it it t f ’.u^^ft** •’I'l' *

,\U) Vi- Wii2/>4^« .iuJ>Jv*»V f**

Fig- 2: The text in this undated Maghrihi manuscript is structured hy the use of emphasized
words and single letters which are written disproportionately large. Munchen, BSB Cod. arah.
2635/9.

The loose leaves of this rather unpretentious manuscript are densely filled with
25 lines per page^” and contain a copy of a text entitled al-Nasiha al-kdfiya li-man
khassahu Ilahu bil- ‘dfiya (‘Sufficient counsel for one who has been favoured by God
with intactness’), on the subject of mystical instruction by the well-known Moroc¬
can Sufi author of Shadhili affiliation, Ahmad al-Zarruq al-Fasi (d. 899/1493). In
some places in this manuscript, black and red intermingle in a single expression,
with a red line drawn above the black letters of a word. Consistently highlighted

20 By contrast to the layout of manuscripts of the eastern Arab countries which, as a rule, are
written in an uneven number of lines per page, Maghribi manuscripts are often written in lines
of even numbers (e.g. BSB Cod. arab. 1689,1698,2635/3:22 lines; 2679:16 lines, 2634/11:18 lines).

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

are the expressions wa-qdl (he said), na'am (yes), wa-minhd (‘to this [subject]
belongs’), written alternately in red and black, or a single letter waw whose head
is picked out in black. The tapered line of final mim in the word na‘am (‘yes’) has
been drawn deep down into the sublinear area. Apart from these emphases, there
are no other apparent devices for structuring the text in this manuscript, such as
blank spaces or indentations. But a number of words are highlighted, again quite
inconsistently, by overlining in a different ink, to indicate the beginning of a new
semantic unit (fol. lOv) or to mark individual expressions in an enumeration of
terms (fol. 6r).

In Maghribi manuscripts, at the beginning of a text (fol. Iv, i.e. at the place
where in the eastern Arabic manuscripts an ‘unwan, or the title of the work may
be found) headings written in very large letters may be inscribed which are made
up of the basmala and a eulogy of the Prophet, followed often by a motto, e.g.,
in Cod. arab. 1698, “its beginning is blessed and its ending fortunate” {mubdrak
al-ibtidd’ maymun al-intihd’); see Fig. 3.

• »,'xjy/ CaiuU/

nJUiT'

Fig- 3: The beginning of the text is made up of the basmala and a eulogy of the Prophet, fol¬
lowed by a motto written in very large letters: mubarakal-ibtida' maymun al-intiha‘ (“its begin¬
ning is blessed and its endingfortunate”). Munchen, BSB Cod. arab. 1698.

Florian Sobieroj

2.1.4 Further fate of the MaghribT type of script

After flourishing for nearly 10 centuries, the Maghribi script is now confined to
decoration on title pages. And yet it may be added, slightly modifying Deroche’s
assessment, that still in the first half of the 20* century manuscripts continued to
be written in the Maghribi style.^^ According to Ibn Khaldun (d. 808/1406; quoted
in Deroche, 2004, 90-91), Maghribi scripts had already started to decline with
the demise of the Almohad dynasty in the 6*/12* - 7*/13* centuries. Models
imported from the Eastern Mediterranean littoral became increasingly appreci¬
ated and imitated. They were taken up by copyists, illuminators and binders from
the Maghrib; and Ottoman prototypes came to replace local ones (op. cit. 95).
However, the Maghribi script survived in sub-Saharan Africa, where it became
known under the name of Sudani, an off-shoot which possibly came from Tunisia/
Qayrawan.^^

2.2 Yemeni manuscripts

In a group of about 150 manuscripts of the south Arabian origin^^ acquired by the
Austrian (originally Bohemian) Jewish traveller-scholar Eduard Glaser (d. 1908)
and sold in 1902 to the then Royal Library in Munich (“Konigliche Hof- und Sta-
atsbibliothek zu Miinchen”), a number of characteristic features may be deter¬
mined as follows;

The majority of the books treat issues of law according to the school of the
Zaydiyya, a moderate ShTi sect almost exclusively rooted in the Yemen, while
legal tracts belonging to the madhhab’s of Sunni Islam, on the other hand,
are very few. Texts on poetry and dogma may also be found in relatively high
numbers in this group of manuscripts whereas the natural sciences are clearly
underrepresented. Owners’ marks entered in the manuscripts^'* show that quite a
number of codices formerly belonged to the members of the families of the ruling
Zaydi Imams.

21 E.g. Gotha, Forschungsbibliothek, Ms. orient. A 807i (dated 1358/1939), Ms. orient. A 1856a
(1329/1911); BSB Cod. arab. 1702/1, containing a text by the celebrated Sufi Ahmad al-‘Alawi
(d. 1934).

22 E.g. Cod. arab. 1110 = Sobieroj 2007, no. 53; on Sudani script see also Gacek 2009, 257-258.

23 This group of manuscripts has been described in detail by the present author in Sobieroj 2007
(cf. also the introduction to the catalogue, pp. XXI-XXXIX).

24 E.g. Cod. arab. 1193,1209,1306.

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

The layout of the legal texts tends to be rather austere and only exception¬
ally is the beginning of a manuscript of this group decorated with an ornamental
head-piece {‘unwdn), the like of which, in Ottoman manuscripts, is often found
drawn above the incipit of the text. Instead, the Zaydi manuscript text is often pre¬
ceded by a vignette (fol. Ir or 2r) in which the full title of the work and the author’s
name, accompanied by numerous honorific appellations, are inscribed.

The examined manuscripts tend to be somewhat inconsistent as to the
number of lines on each page (e.g. Cod. arab. 1199,1214). Also the format of the
text frame appears to be rather flexible (e.g. Cod. arab. 1199, 1214) and catch¬
words in the inner corner at the bottom of the verso-pages are often missing (e.g.
Cod. arab. 1191). Many manuscripts lack folio numbers which, however, may be
replaced by a numbering of quires (e.g. Cod. arab. 1190,1191). In some cases, the
number of the quire is spelled out in words, written in red, and accompanied by
a number placed above (e.g. Cod. arab. 1228). In a book on pharmacology (Cod.
arab. 1242,1244), instead of folio or quire numbers written in the upper corner of
the recto pages, the initial letters of the discussed medicine have been entered.

In the manuscripts on Zaydi law the outline {msm) of the Arabic main text is
often only sparsely provided with diacritical dots. However, the defective point¬
ing here may be contrasted with the commentaries on the Qur’an^^ or in collec¬
tions of poetry and diwan’s (Cod. arab. 1230,1235,1237) which are not only pro¬
vided with full pointing but they may also be partly or fully vocalized. However,
coloured marking of headings and selected expressions tend to be carefully
executed throughout the juridical texts. Alternatively, a thicker qalam (reed pen)
may have been used for highlighting these expressions in black, which are often
traced additionally by a red line (Fig. 4).^®

The colophons which conclude the manuscripts of this group often contain
very detailed information about the production of the text and the copy, and in
some instances fill almost a full page (e.g. Cod. arab. 1295). It is not rare that an
expression like la'allahu (‘perhaps’. Cod. arab. 1310) or azunnuhu (‘I think’. Cod.
arab. 1295) may be found written in the colophon, which indicates that the scribe
harbours doubts concerning the accuracy of a chronological date he mentions.

25 E.g. Zamakhshari’s tafsir (Cod. arab. 1206) or that of Baihaqi (Cod. arab. 1209).

26 Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Ms. Glas. 25: beginning of the 2’^^juz’ (fol. 8v-9r) of the law-book en¬
titled al-Bahr al-Zakhkhdr by Ahmad b. Yahya b. al-Murtada (d. 840/1437, Brockelmann 1937-49,
2,238-240).

Florian Sobieroj

«,S. 'Vo

^i 8^*5 s^ t^'W^u»>J.'>^'*Kj-j:>y'*A^ufU^i'^j

•Ai' ■ ■■1^^*' '*^ . . . ..• . . _A-.

Fig- 4: A thicker qalam (reed pen) is used for highiighting headings and seiected expressions
in hiack. Beginning of the second juz‘ of the iaw-hook entitied al-Bahr al-Zakhkhar hy Ahmad h.
Yahya h. ai-Murtada (d. 840/1437). Beriin, Staatsbihiiothek, Ms. Gias. 25, foi. 8v-9r.

is Wdg^s ■•'

IV , Ev»V.

»!.■'..■• 'iv>. U^a>Su4££is\S^w)(«-iile-\<i-'--'Wi*ii'r^*'''

The technical expression qassasa (‘narration’) is not commonly found in the colo¬
phons of Ottoman manuscripts or in codices produced in the central Arab lands.
This term refers to collation by means of recitation. In the Yemeni manuscript
Cod. arab. 1284 the term qassasa refers to a teaching session, and it is stated there
that the scribe read out and corrected the copy he had made only five days before
in the presence of his teacher.

Some of the Yemeni manuscripts include ijaza’s, i.e. highly individualized
certificates authorizing the recipient to teach or “transmit” {riwdya) a specific
text. The oldest ijdza in this group (which however lacks the term itself) is found
in a manuscript copy (Cod. arab. 1183) of a legal tract entitled Kitab al-ahkdm com¬
posed by the founder of the Zaydi Imamate al-Hadi ila 1-haqq Yahya b. al-Husayn

27 Another Yemeni manuscript containing a qassasa note is Cod. arab. 1324 dated 899/1493. Ac¬
cording to the colophon the text was revised by the scribe on the basis of the muswadda (the
author’s draft) about half a century after the completion of the copy.

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

(d. 298/910). This rudimentary ijaza note is integrated into the beginning of the
law-book and contains the request of a student addressed to his teacher, namely
a son of the author, to authorize him to teach the text which he had previously
studied under him. A much more developed ijaza found in another manuscript
(Cod. arab. 1306) of the group acquired by Eduard Glaser had been issued by the
Zaydi scholar al-Qadi Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Yahya, for the Zaydi Imam, i.e.
the ruler, al-Hadi ila 1-haqq Tzz al-Din al-Hasan (d. 1494-5). The certificate was
entered into the manuscript book one year after the completion of the copy of the
text (889/1485) to which it is related. The ijaza is written without diacritical dots
overall in a rather careless manner which remarkably contrasts with the elegant
hand of the rhymed prose of the composition. The Qadi praises the Imam in the
ijaza through which he authorizes the Imam to transmit the work on Zaydi law. He
apologizes to the Imam for issuing the certificate to someone whose knowledge,
he says, far exceeds his own. However, tradition sanctions the practice that the
author dispenses authorization to his students.

The title page of the Yemeni manuscripts quite often carries a magical
formula believed to act as a protective device against the book worm [al-sus]
whose activity could result in the destruction of the book-binding and paper, and
consequently, in a loss of legibility. A typical formula, which starts vdth the invo¬
cation yd kabikaj ‘Oh, kabikaj!’ (to a toxic plant thus called) is found in Cod. arab.
1196,1199,1307. Less often copied in Yemeni manuscripts are charms which were
expected to prevent theft. A formula entitled ‘azimat al-sdriq ‘spell against the
thief’ is written on the title page of the dated manuscript Cod. arab. 1261 which
was produced in the 16‘^ century. Whilst these or similar apotropaic formulae can
also be found in manuscripts which originated in other parts of the Arab world,
another micro-text seems to be more unique to the Yemeni book-making tradi¬
tion. On one of the first or last leaves of the manuscript, or on the inside cover of
the binding, the Islamic formula of the profession of God’s unity is found, often
accompanied by supplications that explain the purpose of these inscriptions. God
and his angels are asked to safeguard this confession as a treasure that He can
implant in (the heart of) the scribe on the Day of Judgment. A copyist of a Zaydi
legal text informs the reader, in the margins of fol. 266r of Cod. arab. 1323, that
he came across a prayer of the Yemeni author al-Hadawi al-Wazir (d. 914/1508)
in which he asked God that he may make the composition of this work a trea¬
sure (dhakhird) credited to its author on the Last Day. Poems praising the text or
its author are another type of micro-text often found in the beginning pages of
Yemeni manuscripts. On the title page of BSB Cod. arab. 1321, eight Kamil verses
are inscribed which praise the commentary of al-Sahuli al-San‘ani (d. 1060/1650)
on the celebrated Zaydi legal work entitled al-Azhdr fi fiqh al-a’imma al-athdr
Fig. 5). The Hiddyat al-aj1(dr of the aforementioned al-Hadawi is extolled in Cod.

Florian Sobieroj

arab. 1313. Both the beginning and final leaves of these three manuscripts are
filled MFith verses lauding the Qur’an commentary al-Kashshdf of the congenial
Mu'tazili author Mahmud b. ‘Umar al-Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144; no. 144, 146,
418 = Cod. arab. 1202,1204,1206).

life/

-V

\r V

Fig- 5: The celebrated Zaydi [egaiworkat-Azhar fT fiqh al-a‘imma al-athar by Ahmad b. Yahya b.
al-Murtada. The colophon is explicit and dated (Rajab 956/July-August 1549). Collation notes
and explanatory glosses are in the margins, the latter also between the lines. Berlin, Staatsbib-
liothek, Ms. or. Quart. 110, fol. 113v-14r.

2.3 Arabic manuscripts in China

Although large areas of China, in the western and north-western provinces in
particular, on the whole still identify with the Islamic heritage of their ances¬
tors, there is little reliable information about the location of Arabic and other
Islamic manuscripts in that country. An important contribution to the filling of
this lacuna is the chapter by Mozafar Bakhtyar in Geoffrey Roper’s World Survey

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

of Islamic Manuscripts, which lists a number of Islamic manuscript collections
seen by the Iranian scholar during a visit to China in or shortly before 1993.^®

2.3.1 Main categories of manuscripts

The manuscripts existing in China may be divided, follovdng a classification of
Bakhtyar, into four main categories;

1. Manuscripts on Qur’an commentary {tafsir), Islamic law, dogma, and prayer.

As far as tafsir works are concerned, the commentaries of al-Baydawi
(d. 716/1316; Brockelmann 1937-49, 1,530-4), the Tafsir falalayn of Jalal al-Din
al-Mahalli (d. 864/1459; Brockelmann 1937-49, 2,138) and his student Jalal al-Din
al-Suyuti (d. 911/1505, Brockelmann 1937-49, 2,180-204) as well as of al-Sawi^®
are widely read by Chinese Muslims in the Northwest. The Persian Tafsir-i
Husayni, i.e. the Tafsir-i mawahib by Husayn b. ‘Ali al-Wa‘iz-i Kashifi (d. 910/1505;
Tilrk Diyanet 1988ff., 19,16-18), is highly popular, particularly in Sufi circles. As
most Muslims in the Chinese Northwest follow the Hanafi madhhab (school of
law), the manuals of this school are studied, and in particular the “Wiqdya"
{Wiqayat al-riwdya fi masa’il al-Hidayd), with its commentaries by al-Mahbubi
(d. 680/1281; Brockelmann 1937-49, 1,468-69); see Fig. 6. Ma Tong, who is the
author of a number of authoritative works on Sufism in Xibei, mentions Shelaiha
weigaye (fiStll (= Sharh-i Wiqdya) by Maihamude (Mahmud (7))^“ as a

commentary which forms part of the curriculum in Chinese Madrasa education
(cf. Ma Tong 1985, 29, no. 6). As to dogma, the creeds of Najm al-Din ‘Umar b. M.
al-Maturidi al-Nasafi (d. 537/1142; Brockelmann 1937-49,1,548-550), al-'Aqdrid al-
Nasafryya (Agayilin Yisilan IFirM; cf. Ma Tong 1985, 29, no. 5) are still

studied to this day.

28 Bakhtyar 1994, 63-116. Besides using Bakhtyar as source for this section of my paper, I will
also draw on my own data from two trips through northwest (Xibei) China undertaken in 2008
and 2009, as well as pieces of information disclosed to me by some Chinese scholars based in
Lanzhou, Yinchuan and Shanghai, and by some Sufis as well as other Muslims to whom 1 have
spoken in various places in Xibei.

29 Probably identical with Ahmad b. M. al-Sawi al-Misri al-Shadhili al-Khalwati (d. 1241/1825;
Brockelmann 1937-49, 2,465 S 2,743), author of a commentary (Hashiya) on the Tafsir al-Jalalayn
(cf. Kahhala 1957-61, 2,111-112).

30 Brockelmann does not mention in his Geschichte any “Mahmud” as author of a commentary.
The death date 1346, mentioned by Ma Tong, however, is the year in which the author’s grandson
and commentator, ‘Ubaydallah b. Mas'ud, died (Brockelmann 1937-49,1,468,1a).

Florian Sobieroj

^i> '\>^ ->■ ( j^'. K "/\^ o J.\^ i^'. v;/'.t

(UU^v^V-j^ s>i,x a'aj. oj*' ''^L»

i>v ^>“11' J^U •-''juJiiiV o s\s i> --NSt

itir

o*y

■-<V

^\l^^^

;j-ii\ o* ^ VJj

.UiUi; J'JJb ’

j\ yid^ O'^}'

Fig- 6: A manuscript of the ‘Umdatal-ri'aya by al-Lakhnawi. The beginning of the text with
basmala, hamdala and author’s name. Fully pointed khattsM by a trained hand, with some
vocalizations. The expression ammd ba’d and personal names are highlighted in bold script.
Interlinear and marginal glosses are in Chinese characters (e.g., the author’s name is explained
as related to an “Indian town”). Sanying, Ningxia, private collection.

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

2. Classical works on Arabic and Persian grammar.

Ma Tong (1985) 29, no. 3 mentions a work authored by Nur al-Din Jami
(d. 898/1492; Brockelmann 1937-49, 2,266-267) entitled Shelaha Kafeiye

{=Sharh Kdfiya) among the Madrasa teaching manuals (to be identified
with Jami's commentary on Arabic grammar entitled al-Fawa’id al-diya’iyya on
al-Muqaddima al-kdfiya; Brockelmann 1937-49, 2,267,11).

3. Texts of the followers of the mystical orders of the Naqshbandiyya-Jahriyya,^^
Qadiriyya^^ and Kubrawiyya.^^

The Jahriyya is a sect which grew out of the Naqshbandiyya order in China
in the 18‘^ century, and has its strongholds in Ningxia province, in the loop of
the Yellow River. Their sacred verse texts are called Mukhammas, and are based
on the Qasidat al-Burda of the Egyptian mystical poet Sharaf al-Din al-Busiri
(d. 694/1296; Brockelmann 1937-49,1,308-14)^'* as well as a second Arabic text in
praise of Muhammad called Mada’ih?^ As for the Qadiriyya order, the Sirr al-asrar
of the order’s founder, ‘Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani (d. 561/1167; Brockelmann 1937-49,
1,436), is studied by the murids of the Guo gongbei in Linxia i|nS, formerly
called Hezhou iRT'/H or “Little Mecca”.^® The Qadiri Sufis likewise meditate on a
famous collection of mystical letters, the Maktuhat-i rabbdnP^ by Ahmad Sirhindi
(d. 1034 /1624; TiirkDiyanet 1988ff., 22,194-199 [art. “imam-i rabbam”]), the great
Indian Sufi master of the Naqshbandiyya. The most important text studied within
the Kubrawiyya order is the celebrated Mirsad al-‘ibdd of Najm al-Din Razi Daya

31 Rendered in Chinese as Zheherenye SilfS® or

32 The Gadelinye order has its centre in the area of Linxia in southern Gansu province.

The town is graced by three Qadiri convents, situated next to each other, called Da gongbei, Taizi
Gongbei and Guo gongbei. The latter was built in the second decade of the 18'** century around
the tomb of a saint remembered as Chen Yiming PS—=S Muhyi al-Din M. Husayn (d. 1718; cf.
Linxia Guo gongbei 1997,1, 14), allegedly a Prophet’s descendant in the ZP'** generation. For the
Qadiriyya in northwest China see Ma Tong 2000; idem 1980,228-270; for the Da Gongbei Ma Tong
1980, 230-244.

33 Rendered in Chinese as Kuburenye cf. Ma Tong 1980, 80, 333; Algar 1982, introd.

34 Qn this work, entitled in Chinese Gaisuide buerde mfStt see Ma Tong 1985, 32, no. 2.

35 Cf. Ma Tong 1985, 34, no. 4. Facsimile reproductions of Sini-style manuscripts of both prophe-
tological works are sold, for example, in the bookshop adjacent to the Great mosque (Nanguan
Qingzhensi) of Yinchuan. Whereas the rear of a long book-shelf was partly dominated (Sept.
2009) by books on Chinese Sufism and traditional Tafsir works, in the front, books were dis¬
played bearing a distinctly Wahhabi imprint.

36 For Linxia see the Chinese Islamic encyclopaedia entitled Zhongguo yisilan baike quanshu =
Baike quanshu (2007), 215f.

37 The epistles are also being read, inan Arabic version (to'nh) printed in Mecca, by the students
of the Jahriyya convent called Flonglefu gongbei lUJftdt near Wuzhong in Ningxia province.

100

Florian Sobieroj

(d. 7*/13* century; TurkDiyanet 1988ff., 32,496-497 [art. “Necmeddm-i Daye”])^®
which also was one of the main literary sources of the illustrious Sufi author Liu
Zhi a Hui scholar of Nanjing (d. 1158/1745; Baike quanshu 2007,321-322).^®

4. Some well-known texts of Persian literature,'"’ extant in many copies in China.

2.3.2 Manuscript losses

The majority of Islamic manuscript collections in China are privately owned.
Most manuscripts are not kept in state libraries or museums but rather in the
villages, private homes, mosques or Sufi convents. In reaction to their historical
experience, owners are secretive about the number of their manuscripts. Even
nowadays Muslims hide their books fearing the government may learn of their
existence and seize them.'*^ As the manuscripts continue to be moved from one
place to another it is difficult to judge as to the reliability of numbers given for any
collections said to exist at a particular place.

It is still not knovm as to what extent Arabic and other Islamic manuscripts
have been destroyed or removed from China. However, three main factors''^ which
had a disastrous effect vdth regard to this loss of cultural heritage may be deter¬
mined;

38 A manuscript, enriched with Chinese glosses, of this systematization of Sufism has been
brought from Xibei to France by Henri d’Ollone (d. 1945) during the famous expedition he under¬
took in 1906-1909 (cf. Algar 1982, 20). The text of the Mirsdd has been translated from Persian
into English by Hamid Algar (1982); for the Mirsdd see also Ma Tong 1985, 30, no. 11, p. 33, no. 3.

39 The Mirsdd, translated into Chinese already in the 17**' century (Leslie 1982,89, no. 7), is men¬
tioned in the bibliographical lists of Arabic and Persian titles prefaced by Liu Zhi to two of his
writings.

40 Bakhtyar mentions manuscripts he saw of Sa'di's Gulistdn (Ma Tong 1985, 30, no. 9) and
Bustdn, of the Diwdn of Hafiz, of Rumi's Mathnawi and some works by Jami. Ma Tong 1985,
28-31, lists 13 Arabic and Persian titles still studied in the Madrasas by the Hailifan
(=khalifas=students).

41 An Ahong of a Jahriyya convent reported to me that in order to save a prayer book from the
Red guards he kept hiding the manuscript by taking it back and forth between the gongbei and
his home.

42 Bakhtyar 1994,106 mentions a collection of Islamic manuscripts located in Shanghai Munici¬
pal Library which, when he wrote, was preparing to move from Nanjing Road to a new site on
Huaihai Rd. However, during my visit to the gigantic modern library in 20091 was told by various
employees that no Islamic manuscripts whatsoever are or were kept in the library. I was referred
to the affiliated Bibliotheca Major ofZi-ka-wei (#^;C Xujiahui) established in 1874 by Jesuit mis¬
sionaries where again Islamic manuscripts were said to be non-existent.

43 Cf. Bakhtyar 1994, 68-69.

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

101

1. In the era of colonialism, European orientalists and archaeologists were
eager to collect Islamic manuscripts (Bakhtyar 1994, 69). Rarely however
were manuscripts, seized unlawfully, returned to the country of their origin
(which may have saved them from destruction during the revolution).''''

2. Internal wars between local governors as well as sectarian disputes. There
also needs to be added, for the first half of the 20* century, the Sino-Japanese
War (1937-1945) as well as the Civil War between the Communists and the
Guomindang of Chiang Kai-Shek (1946-1949).''^

3. The “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” between 1966 and 1976 during
which thousands of Arabic and other Islamic manuscripts were destroyed.
Buildings of the Muslim communities were demolished as the people were
made to believe by the communist propaganda that their traditional culture
embodied reactionary attitudes.'*'’ Eyewitnesses report that book burnings
took place regularly at that time.''^ Historical inscriptions in mosques and in
temples''® were smashed and calligraphic carvings obliterated. That at least a
catalogue of the destroyed books survived seems to have been the exception
rather than the rule.''® It may be added that the destruction of Islamic librar¬
ies was already anticipated by the “Religious Reform Movement” in 1958
(Dillon 1999,164).

44 It may be mentioned that the governor-general of Turkestan, Konstantin P. von Kaufmann,
between the years 1868-76 procured for the Russian Czar 300 manuscripts written in the Arabic
script which he then passed on to the Imperial Public Library of St. Peterburg. In 1962 all the
manuscripts are said to have been returned to Uzbekistan (cf. Zaitsev & Datsiuk 2005,13).

45 Oral information obtained from Prof. Wang lianping.

46 The Chinese text on a stone plate attached to the Yinhe mosque of the Gedimu f&jfi g (qadlm)
sect (on the Gedimu “orthodoxy” see Dillon 1999, 95f.; Ma Tong 1980, 88) in Guyuan, south¬
ern Ningxia, erected in 1874, recalls that the site was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution
and thereafter rebuilt. An example of a Sufi convent demolished during wenhua geming is the
Honglefu gongbei. The convent, erected in 1778, is said by its inhabitants to have been wholly
destroyed during the “years of turmoil” and turned into farmland whilst their books were annihi¬
lated. However, nowadays Islamic life is flourishing again in the rebuilt convent and traditional
education has been revived.

47 Cf. Dillon 1999, 164. The Ahong of Sanying mosque situated on the trunk road between Yin-
chuan and Guyuan showed me in 2009 his Arabic books among which there were a few guji
Arabic manuscripts on grammar and Tafsir. Some of the books showed traces of burning, and the
cleric indicated that they had been salvaged from the fires during the violent campaigns.

48 One Lama of the Gelugpa monastery of Labrang in Xiahe TM county, southern Gansu, con¬
fided to me in 2009 that the majority of their library-books were destroyed during the revolution.

49 The titles of 90 Arabic and Persian manuscripts of Yongshou mosque Sanlihe HSM of Bei¬
jing survived in a handlist compiled by Bouvat (1908). Both the mosque library and the 500 year-
old building were destroyed (Bakhtyar 1994,68).

102

Florian Sobieroj

2.3.3 Some characteristics of Sino-Arabic manuscripts
2.3.3.1 Bindings and paper

Very many manuscripts in China are in poor condition, due to the extreme climate
(Bakhtyar 1994, 75) and as a result of the above mentioned historical upheavals.
Often the leaves are kept in a loose-leaf binding, and as a result they have come
into disorder. The end-pages are often missing. The bindings of Arabic and other
Islamic manuscripts made in China tend to be primitive, mostly lacking the flap
and any kind of ornamentation. The binding made of sheep’s leather covering a
manuscript of sewn quires seen in Honglefu convent seems to be rather excep¬
tional.

Many Islamic manuscripts in China were written on folded paper. Traditional
Chinese paper employed for manuscript copying was extremely thin. Therefore,
the ink penetrated the paper affecting the back side. As a result the verso page
could not be used for writing. To solve this problem folded paper (folded only
once) was used for copying texts.^”

2.3.3.2 The Language of Chinese Muslims

Owing to the fact that Islam was spread from central Asia into northwest China
mainly through Persian-speaking missionaries, the Persian element is strongly
present in Chinese Arabic literacy. Persian became the dominant language of
the region conquered by the Mongols, and it remained in use well into the Ming
dynasty (1368-1644) which followed the Yuan era (1260-1368). Textual explana¬
tions and interpretations were often written in Persian, and many manuscripts
are finished with the Persian formula tamam shud. The language of the Muslims
in China has sometimes been called Huihui hua 0 0i5, the term used by some
writers for both Arabic and Persian (Dillon 1999,156). Arabic as the language of
the Qur’an, irrespective of the relative dominance of Persian, has of course been
preserved by Chinese Muslims and numerous heads of community, Yimamu
S, especially those who belong to the growing number of Chinese Muslims who
are fortunate to have performed the pilgrimage to Mecca and can boast mastery
of Arabic.

50 Cf. Bakhtyar 1994, 72. Another example is the al-Harirl manuscript of the Famen menhuan
(see below).

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

103

2.3.3.3 Use of the xiaoerjing script

Some Islamic manuscripts have been vyritten in the xiaoer jing d'JL S (or xiao
jing 'i' S ‘small classic’ or xiaoer jin d'JL^ ‘little brocade’) script. The term
designates a system of transliteration of Chinese into Arabic script enriched by
some letters borrovyed from the Persian alphabet. The script was derived from
primary level text-books in which this method was used as a way of introducing
children {xiaoer ‘children’) to the Arabic script prior to the study of the Arabic
language itself (cf. Dillon 1999,155). Many Chinese Muslims preferred transliterat¬
ing Chinese into the Arabic script to writing characters, as they felt that learning
haru:i ‘(Chinese) characters’ was incompatible with their religion. The oldest evi¬
dence of xiaoer jing is mentioned by Bakhtyar (1994,77) who saw a sample copied
in 713/1313 found in the Tibb-i ahl-i Khita of Rashid al-Din Fadlallah Hamadani
(fl. 14**’ century, Brockelmann 1937-49, 2,256), the wazir of the Mongol emperor
Oljaytu. It includes a transliterated passage from a versified Chinese medicinal
text.^^

2.3.4 Sino-Arabic script

2.3.4.1 Two manuscripts of the Jahriyya’^ order in praise of Muhammad

Another distinctive style of the Arabic script used in the majority of Islamic manu¬
scripts of Chinese origin is generally called Sini, and seems strongly influenced
by various types of Persian script. It resembles the cursive Thuluth popular in
Persia and Central Asia during the Mongol Ilkhan period. The Sini style of Arabic
script shows the influence of Chinese characters, its letters being “rounded and
flowing [...] with slender anklets and fat feet’’.^^

51 Cf. the illustration in Bakhtyar 1994,77; the second and third lines are Chinese, the words writ¬
ten beneath the line are Persian translations. For xiaoer jing, also called Pinyin wenzi SPa

see a comprehensive article in the internet encyclopaedia Wildpedia.

52 The lahriyya, also called the “Chanting Aloud Sect” {gaosongpai itiiiM) - with regard to the
remembrance of God, is a division, founded by Ma Mingxin, of the Naqshbandiyya Sufi order and
maybe counted as the largest of the Islamic menhuan in China (cf. Dillon 1999,121-125).

53 Cf. China Heritage 2006. Bakhtyar 1994, 72f., however, relates the script to Nasta‘Iiq-i
Turkistdni, a style used in “Chinese Turkistan”. Sheila S. Blair mentions some characteristics
of a Chinese script which she considers to be a variant of Muhaqqaq (Blair 2006, 373-374). She
includes an illustration from a thirty-volume Qur’an manuscript dated Muharram 804/October
1401, Khanbaliq (= modern Beijing), figure 9.3 (Blair 2006, 374).

104

Florian Sobieroj

A facsimile reproduction^'' of a manuscript copy of the Arabic text in praise of
God and his Prophet, entitled Mada’ih (Maidayiha may serve as a first

example of the Sino-Arabic script (Fig. 7).

Fig- 7: A facsimile reproduction of a manuscript copy of the Arabic text in praise of God and his
Prophet, entitled Mada'ih.

The script is compressed, fully vocalized and equipped vnth diacritical dots. The
letters m \ waw and nun in the final position are wrritten vdth long tapered ends.

The manuscript was copied according to the Chinese preface by Li Fa-en
Imam of Milexian in Yunnan province^^ and concludes with the

Persian formula tamdm shud.

The text, with incipit al-hamdu lilldhi lladhi sharrafa l-andma bi-sdhibi
l-maqdmi l-ald wa-kammala s-su’uda bi-akmmi maulud (“praise be to God who
has honoured mankind through the lord of the highest station, i.e. Muhammad,
and perfected the blest through the most noble of those [ever] born”), composed
in rhymed prose is followed by a prayer, written by the same hand, in which the
name of “Sidi Baha’ al-Din an-Naqshbandiyya” is mentioned. Therefore, the Sufi

54 The facsimile was published in the Chongde ## mosque of Kunming in Ramadan 2009.

55 Personal communication with a student of the Honglefu convent.

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

105

order for whose students the text was printed (as stated in the preface) should be
identified as Jahriyya. The members are obliged to recite the Madd’ih as part of
their daily spiritual practice.

The murids of the Jahriyya believe that the order’s founder Ma Mingxin, who
carries the honorific name {zunhao ©•§■) Wiqayatallah, al-Shahid (d. 1781; Baike
quanshu 2007, 345), brought the Madd’ih to China on his return from Yemen.^®
He had received ijdza from a Yemeni shaykh called Muhammad b. Zayn (? Zaini
ifeU) as well as the behest to spread the teachings of the Naqshbandiyya in the
Middle Kingdom (Ma Tong 1985, 86). Wiqayatallah ended his life being executed
in Lanzhou by the Qing government. In the wake of Ma’s execution his followers
called themselves shuhedayi (Arabic: shuhadd’, ‘martyrs’) and contin¬

ued to nurture in themselves the spirit of martyrdom (Ma Tong 1985, 85) which,
in the first place, was directed against the oppressive rule of the Manchu Qing
dynasty.

The Mukhammas (Muhanmaisi ttPSUr) on the Qasidat al-Burda of al-Busiri
is a second text in praise of Muhammad held in the highest esteem among the
Sufis of the Jahriyya order.^^ As is the case with the previous poem, the Mukham¬
mas is also recited as part of their daily wazifa (cf. the Chinese postscript of the
facsimile, Ma Liesun 1992,166).

Still in the 1960s, manuscript copies of the Mukhammas were made by the
Jahri-Sufis of Ningxia. A copy of the text, extant in the Honglefu Gongbei (Fig. 8),
has been executed by the head of the convent, an elderly Shaykh called Yan(?)
Liangbi Muhammad Ishaq, who originated from Xiji in southern

Ningxia. He is said to have studied the art of Arabic calligraphy in the province
and completed, in 1969, the manuscript which I was shown in September 2009.
The copy includes a colophon vdth the name of the scribe {bizhe ^#), in both
Chinese and Arabic.^®

56 Ma Tong 1985, 34 describes a text entitled Madd’ih (Mandanyehe probably identi¬

cal with the above, authored by one Xiehe Aihamode Yiben Guximu fflSf JtUpDitt

(Shaykh Ahmad b. Qasim?), which Ma Mingxin had been taught, in the Yemen, by his Sufi master
Ibn Zayn, i.e. ‘Abd al-Khaliq Zayn al-Mizjaji al-Zabidi {Baike quanshu 2007,345,739) (d. 1181/1767;
Sobieroj 2010, no. 215; Kahhala 1957-61, 5,110).

57 A manuscript copy of the text was published as facsimile by Ma Liesun (1992)

58 Upon my request, the Shaykh also entered the year of copying, viz. 1969, into the manuscript.

106

Florian Sobieroj

Fig- 8: A copy of the Mukhammas written by Shaykh Yan(?) Liangbi Muhammad Ishaq,

the head of the Jahriyya convent Honglefu Gongbei. Wuzhong, Ningxia, the Honglefu Gongbei
library.

The poetic text in Arabic is written in a distinctively Chinese style, i.e. khatt sini,
with full diacritical dots and vocalizations. The script is compressed and only
the upstrokes of a few letters like alif and Idm stand out. The ends of final nun,
mlm and yd’, as well as of rd’ and zay are tapered, letter waw is written dispro¬
portionately large. Some letters such as ddd, nun or yd’, in their final form, are
stretched out to the extent that the subsequent words are embraced from below.
On the whole, the script of the Honglefu manuscript is more angular than that of
the facsimile copy as is shown in the curvatures of a number of letters in the final
position.

On each folio or page of the manuscript of Busiri’s poem (incipit: Yd ayyuhd
l-muhtazi min ladhdhati l-alami / yd ayyuhd l-mughtadhi min zallati l-saqami, “o

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

107

thou who art imparted the bliss of pain / o thou who nourishest thyself from the slip
of sickness”) two half verses of the original poem are preceded by three Arabic
verses of amplification, thus making a stanza of five lines per page. The composer
of the Takhmis is a poet called Muhammad Mawlawi Tabadikani n Tusi

(cf. facs. 168) or - more correctly - Beyadgani al-Tusi. A parallel manuscript, Man¬
chester no. 472, has the author’s name as M. b. M. b. M. al-Batatakani. Mingana,
the cataloguer of the Arabic manuscripts in the John Rylands library, refers to
Hajji Khalifa 1964, 4,527 for the Persian name and death date which is estimated
by the Turkish bibliographer as ca. 900/1494.

The Sini-Arabic text is followed, at the bottom of each page, by three lines of a
Persian translation written with a thinner qalamf^ On the left margin of the recto
page of the Honglefu manuscript a Chinese translation has been added written in
two columns. The language seems less refined than that of the facsimile which is
given on facing pages and written horizontally from left to right in five lines. Also,
by contrast to the facsimile, the modern manuscript has interlinear explanatory
notes in Arabic as well as a heading in the upper margin, viz. al-fasl al-awwal fi
mabhath ‘ishq rasul Allah “the first passage concerning the love of God’s mes¬
senger”.

2.3.4.2 A small Islamic manuscript collection: the library of the Famen
menhuan llfing

To complete this section, I will briefly touch upon one small collection of Arabic
and Persian manuscripts owned by a Sufi convent in Gansu province and not
mentioned in Bakhtyar 1994. It may serve to underpin the impression that Islamic
manuscript collections in the northwest are rather found in the villages than in
the large cities.

I saw the collection in August 2009 in a village called Shitouwa 5 at a
short distance from Linxia. Twenty to thirty manuscripts forming part of a library
of about a hundred books, are located in the home, a stately mansion vdth a
large walled courtyard surrounded by agricultural fields, of the present Shaihai
of the Famen sub-sect of the Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya, Muhammad b.
Shu'ayb, Fa (= Chinese family name) Yuanzhong.

Some of the manuscripts are in bad condition: the paper is especially
damaged in the books that were buried in the ground for protection against the

59 The scribe of both the Arabic and the Persian text, published by Ma Liesun, according to Ma
Tong (1985,33), is called Ma Yuanzhang 3, The Manchester manuscript, written in an Indian

TaTiq has also both Arabic text and (rhymed) Persian translation.

108

Florian Sobieroj

Red Guards. Apparendy this strategy proved successful and only a very small
number of the Famen books were lost in the “years of turmoil”.

The collection includes Arabic wrorks such as the Maqamat of al-Hariri (d.
516/1122; Brockelmann 1937-49, 1,325-29) written on traditional Chinese folded
paper, as well as Persian texts which outnumber those in Arabic. There is a manu¬
script of Rtimi’s MafhnawT’” and one containing a glossary of the Tafslr al-Husaynl.
Some of the manuscripts were copied in the countries of the central Islamic zone,
from where they were brought to China, but a number of codices originated in the
work of Chinese Ahongs. These are represented not only as copyists but also as
compilers and authors.*’^

The collection is said to have been bequeathed from one shaykh to his succes¬
sor from among the members of the Fa family. The owners’ stamps dated 1326/1908
found in some of the manuscripts (e.g. in the abovementioned glossary) show
that the books had already belonged to al-Hajj Sa'id b. Ibrahim al-Khajwi (sic!,
i.e. of Hezhou) who transplanted this branch of the Naqshbandiyya from Mecca
to northwest China.

This transmission of Sufism is attested in two certificates of transmission
(ijdza) which may be considered as forming the most valuable part of the col¬
lection. A Chinese translation of the two manuscripts has been published on
pp. 15-19 of a booklet written by Hajj Muhammad Shu'ayb b. al-Shaykh Shams
al-Din al-Khajvn, Fa Yuanzhong.®^

The first ijdza (Fig. 9) (= Chinese translation 15-16), written in a neat Naskhi
hand with full diacritical dots, 18 lines to the page, was issued by a native
Indian Sufi of Delhi, called Muhammad Ma'sum al-Naqshbandi al-Mujaddidi
al-Madani, in Mecca, Thursday, 14th Dhu al-Hijja 1339/1920-1921, for al-Hajj
Muhammad Sa'id al-Khajwi. The ijdza specifies that M. Sa'id entered the Naqsh¬
bandiyya order “at the hands” of M. Ma'sum who had taught him the adhkdr,
various murdqabdt, the “three words” {al-kalimdt al-thaldtha) and the “seven
realities” {al-haqd’iq al-thaldtha), i.e. various spiritual practices and prayers.
The shaykh grants him permission to initiate into the Mujaddidiyya and other (!)

60 According to the colophon the manuscript was copied in Dhu 1-Hijja 1134/September 1722 by
a scribe who called himself Baghdadi. The town referred to probably is not to be identified with
Baghdad in Mesopotamia but rather with Persian-speaking Baghdadak in Khwarazm (for this
place see Algar 1982, introd. 9).

61 The manuscripts include Persian tracts on Sufism, mostly of the Naqshbandiyya; various
Arabic prayer books, partly with Arabic and partly with Persian glosses; an Arabic text entitled
al-Kifdya fl l-Hiddya, on philosophy [by al-Sabuni (?), d. 580/1184; cf. Brockelmann 1937-49, S 1,
643,20,1]; a Persian commentary on Prophetic traditions, divided in 16 sections (fast).

62 The booklet is entitled famen menhuan daotongpuxi Ml'H'lSililiHS [Arabic title: al-Silsila
al-'aliyya al-Naqshhandiyya al-Mujaddidiyya] and was published in Linxia, 2009.

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

109

■ u .‘f

W»W'>

‘HV-/

^ -AJ J

\j:,

_ V\ ^

‘HV'- "'-^lt'" -’^ •- ^

<u-*-'r

c; ^ jki^* r; wV 'C

, • V -p >.^ y’* ^ ^ ‘ ft.' ^ * •■

W'^tS'p^^y

> ,t?AA.a.> i.v,,iX|;r-AH - V'^- .

^ ^■■, '^ -’. '.vrt

" ■ ■ ; •
y- ; 't..

Fig. 9: A certificate of transmission (ijaza) issued by a native Indian Sufi of Delhi, called
Muhammad Ma'sum al-NaqshbandT al-MujaddidT al-MadanT, in Mecca, Thursday, 14th Dhu
al-Hijja. 1339/1920-21, for al-Hajj Muhammad Sa'Td al-KhajwT. Shitouwa, Gansu, The Famen
menhuan collection.

orders {wa-qad ajaztuhu li-Vtd’ al-tariqa al-Muj. wa-ghayriha min al-turuq lil-
talibin wal-murldin wal-mutawaijihat ilayhim) whosoever he wishes, and also to
initiate them into all the litanies and gnoses {fIjamV al-awrdd wal-‘ulum) which
he himself had received from his masters. He continues with the commandment
(wa-iisihi) to his disciple that he should follow the sharVa and Muhammad’s
sunna and eschew innovations; to turn to God {tawaijuh) permanently and pre-

110

Florian Sobieroj

occupy himself with the litanies (adhkar), meditations {muraqabat) and God¬
pleasing works {mardiyyat) as much as he can. Muhammad Ma'sum concludes
his exhortation {wasiyya) with the request that al-Khajwi may not forget to pray
for him in his “pious supplications” and he adds himself a prayer in which he
asks God to make his student “a guide and one guided”.

The booklet of Muhammad Shu'ayb contains next to the translations the
Arabic text of the wird-litany for the recitation by the Chinese Famen Mujaddidi’s
which also includes the names of the masters of the initiatory “golden chain” {al-
silsila al-dhahabiyya). According to this genealogy, the authorization to initiate
novices into the Mujaddidiyya-Ma'sumiyya order was dispensed by Muhammad
Ma'sum’s son, Abu 1-Sharaf ‘Abdalqadir al-Mujaddidi al-Dihli al-Madani al-Makki,
the author of the second ijdza (translation 16-19), in Mecca in 1351/1932-1933, to
Shams al-Din b. Sa'id al-Khajwi, i.e., the son of Muhammad SaTd.

3 Conclusion

Arabic manuscripts produced on the periphery of Islam generally follow the
models typical of Arabic manuscript culture. Certifications of text transmission
are included in the Yemeni manuscripts as regularly as they are found in the
Ottoman ones and commentaries written in the margins of the manuscripts of
Chinese origin are as elaborate as those inscribed in codices from Mamluk Egypt.
The variation observed, e.g. in didactic poems, is a phenomenon encountered in
the Maghribi manuscripts as much as in those written in Mesopotamia, although
the repertoire of the texts transmitted in the Maghrib may slightly differ due to the
adherence of most of northwest Africa to the Maliki madhhab.

Many shared features notwithstanding, peripheral Muslim manuscript cul¬
tures differ from those of the centre in various ways. In the Maghrib, specific solu¬
tions were worked out for the composition of the codex, and the script shows
greater deviation from the central Arabic styles when compared to the Arabic
script in China, which places the diacritical dots in an identical manner to the
“orthodox” Naskhi styles. The Maghribi manuscript culture also differs in the
use of colours whose gamut is far broader than in the central Arab lands. As
regards Yemeni manuscripts, some micro-texts are highlighted which seem to
have been noted on the flyleaves and beginning pages more regularly than in
manuscripts of the central Islamic lands. Many legal manuscripts of the Zaydiyya
school strike the reader with a certain austerity and their defective pointing of the
texts. As is evident from several glosses in the margins of Yemeni manuscripts,
the Southern Arabian certification procedures differ in some detail from those

Arabic Manuscripts on the Periphery: Northwest Africa, Yemen and China

111

that were practiced in certain other scholarly milieus, e.g. in Ottoman Turkey.
Arabic manuscripts made in pre-modern China tended to be written on folded
paper for practical reasons, and the xiaoerjing type of Arabic-based script used
by the indigenous scribes shows the influence of Chinese characters. The latter
were used in the margins and between the lines to explain unknown Arabic
expressions, alongside with the Chinese language glosses written in Arabic script
preferred by the Muslims. The strong presence of the Persian language in tradi¬
tional Chinese Islamic culture shows itself in Persian terms and glosses found in
manuscripts produced in the Middle Kingdom.

The spectrum of variation in Arabic manuscript culture is fascinating and
gives the student of Arabic codicology continuous grounds for delight.

References

Algar, Hamid (1982), The Path of God’s Bondsmen from Origin to Return. A Sufi Compendium
by Najm al-Din Razi, known as Daya. Trans, from the Persian, with introd. and annotation
by H. A. Ehsan Yarshater (ed.). Persian Heritage Series, number 35, Deimar, New York:
Caravan books.

Baike quanshu (Zhongguo yisilan baike quanshu) (2007) Encyciopaedia of

isiam. Chengdu: Sichuan chuban jituan. Sichuan cishu chubanshe.

Bakhtyar, Mozafar (Muzaffar Bakhtyar) (1994), [Chapter] “China”, in: Roper, Geoffrey (ed.)
World Survey of islamic Manuscripts. 4. London: Ai-Furqan isiamic Heritage Foundation,
63-116.

Biair, Sheiia (2006), islamic Calligraphy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Boogert, Nico van den (1989), “Some notes on Maghribi script”, in: Manuscripts oftheMiddle
Cost 4, 30-43.

Bouvat, Lucien (1908), “Une bibiiotheque de mosquee chinoise”, in: Revue du Monde
Musulman iV, 516-521.

Brockeimann, Cari (1937-49), Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, 2, den Suppiementbanden
angepaBte Aufiage, voi. 1-2, suppi. voi. 1-3, Leiden: Briii.

China Heritage Project (2006), in: China Heritage Newsletter, Austraiian Nationai University,
no 5.

Deroche, Francois (2000), Manuel de codicologie des manuscrits en ecriture Arabe, Paris:
Bibiiotheque nationaie de France.

Deroche, Francois (2004), Le livre manuscrit arabe. Preludes a une histoire, Paris: Bibiiotheque
nationaie de France.

Diiion, Michaei (1999), China's Muslim Hui Community. Migration, Settlement and Sects,
Richmond: Curzon.

Gacek, Adam (2009), Arabic Manuscripts. A Vademecum for Readers. Handbook of Orientai
Studies, Section 1, The Near and Middie East, Leiden: Briii.

HajjT KhaiTfa, Mustafa b. ‘Abdaiiah Katib CeiebT (1964), Kashfal-zunOn ‘an asamial-kutub
wa-al-funOn. Lexicon bibliographicum etencyclopaedicum etc. Edidit iatine vertit et

112

Florian Sobieroj

commentario indicibusque instruxit Gustavus Fluegel, repr. vol. 1-7, New York: Johnson
reprint corporation Johnson reprint company limited.

Kahhala, ‘Umar Rida (1376-81/1957-61), Mu‘jam al-mu‘allifln. Tarajim musannifial-kutub
al-‘arabiyya, juz' 1-15, Bayrut: Dar ihya’ al-turath al-‘arabT.

Leslie, Donald Daniel (1982), “Arabic and Persian Sources used by Liu Chib”, in: Central Asiatic
Journal 26, 78-lOA.

Linxia Guo gongbei jianshi (1997), Linxia.

Ma, Liesun S, jiJ^Jn (ed.) (1992), Mukhammas, facsimile (reprint?), no place.

Ma, Tong (1980), Zhongguo yisilanjiaopaiyu menhuan zhidu shilue

Ningxia renmin chubanshe.

Ma, Tong (1985), Zhongguo yisilanjiaopai menhuan suyuan shilue rp
Ningxia renmin chubanshe.

Ma, Tong (2000), “A Brief Flistory of the Qadiriyya in China”. Translated and introduced by

Jonathan Lipman, \n: Journal of the History of Sufism (eds. Th. Zarcone, E. lsin,A. Buehler).
Istanbul, 1-2, 5A7-576.

Ma, Xiaopei (2007), „Lun Famen menhuan liangfen alabowen Sufei chuanjiao pingzheng de
wenxian jiazhi ji xinxi“ in: Shijie

zongjiao yanjiu zazhishe. Beijing baokan faxingju 6,115-123. [A Chinese article on the two
//dzo-Mss. of the Famen Menhuan].

Madd’ih (2009), facsimile, Kunming: Chongde JPtt mosque.

Pedersen, Johannes (1984), The Arabic Book. Transl. by Geoffrey French. Edited with an
introduction by Robert Hillenbrand, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

QadT ‘lyad ibn Musa ibn ‘lyad, K. al-Shifd’ bi-ta‘rlf huquq al-Mustafd. Ms. BSB Cod. arab. 1551.

Schubert, Gudrun / Wursch, Renate (2001), Die Handschriften der Universitdtsbibliothek Basel.
Arabische Handschriften. Unter der Leitung von Gregor Schoeler. Beschrieben von G. S.
und R. W., Vorarbeiten von Fritz Meier u.a., Basel: Schwabe.

Sobieroj, Florian (2007), Arabische Handschriften. Reihe B: Teil 8: Arabische Handschriften
der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothekzu Munchen unter Einschluji einiger Wrkischer und
persischer Handschriften. Band 1, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in
Deutschland, Stuttgart: Steiner.

Sobieroj, Florian (2010), Arabische Handschriften. Reihe B: Teil 9: Arabische Handschriften
der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothekzu Munchen unter Einschluji einiger Wrkischer und
persischer Handschriften. Band 2, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in
Deutschland, Stuttgart: Steiner.

Turk Diyanet Vakfi Islam Ansiklopedisi (1988ff.), Istanbul: Turkiye Diyanet Vakfi.

Weisweiler, Max(1935),“Arabische Schreiberverse”, in: Rudi Paret (ed.), Orientalistische
Studien. Enno Littmann zu seinem 60. Geburtstag etc. Leiden: Brill, 101-120.

Zaitsev, V.N. and I.V. Datsiuk(eds.) (2005), Zemcuzinavkoronje. Otdjelrukopisjeirossijskoi
nazional’noj bibliotjeki 1805-2005. Sankt-Peterburg: Rossijskaja nazional'naja
bibliotjeka.

Dmitry Bondarev

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts:
The Case of Borno, Nigeria'

1 Introduction

Manuscripts in Arabic and Arabic-based scripts produced in sub-Saharan Africa
have long been marginalised by students of Islamic palaeography and codico-
logy. Although the finely illuminated calligraphic manuscripts of Persia, the
Middle East, and North Africa attracted the attention of European scholars and
collectors (Venetian collectors, for example [Carboni 2007,19-20, 35]) as early as
the 16**' century, manuscripts from sub-Saharan Africa rarely reached European
collections and libraries. Those few that were available were overshadowed by
the colourful calligraphic tradition of the Islamic East.

Until recently, the very notion of “calligraphy” would not have arisen in con¬
nection with manuscripts of sub-Saharan origin. In defining and describing the
various script types known in Islamic Spain and North and West Africa, scholars
could not help avoiding arbitrary or subjective evaluation: “... there is a rather
primitive type used in West Africa called Sudani” (James 1980,109, my italics).^
Such a priori judgements of primitiveness or sophistication are of little help, for
they ignore the indigenous aesthetic values of local African writing traditions.
In Borno, for example, careful, uniform hands characterised by angular thick
strokes were used specifically for the text of the Qur’an and for some “official”
documents in local languages, such as genealogical lists and diplomatic corre¬
spondence, while more cursive and less careful hands - sometimes very similar
to the ordinary writing styles of North Africa and Spain in the period from the
12**' to the 16**' century - were used for anything else (see discussion below). This
fact clearly indicates that the local writing tradition deliberately applied distinct

1 I wish to thank Peter Agocs, Nikolay Dobronravin, Michael Friedrich, Alessandro Gori and
Mauro Nobili for their valuable comments on an earlier version of this article. The work has
been supported by the joint Germany/UK project “A study of Old Kanembu in early West African
Qur’anic manuscripts and Islamic recitations (Tarjumo) in the light of Kanuri-Kanembu dialects
spoken around Lake Chad”, DFG/Asien-Afrika-Institut, University of Hamburg and AHRC/SOAS,
2009-2011.

2 Sudani means ‘of Sudan origin’, based on the Arabic term bildd al-Suddn ‘the land of the black
people’ applied by early Muslim writers to the territories of sub-Saharan Africa which are now
known as West Africa (from the Atlantic cost to Modern Sudan).

114

Dmitry Bondarev

styles to different types of documents. Even “primitive” Sudani could vary in
accordance with special aesthetic and practical requirements.

Major European exploration of African cultures began only at the time of the
Napoleonic wars; by the mid-19**' century, it had reached an advanced stage. It
is therefore no surprise that, in publications on Islamic palaeography, the first
references to sub-Saharan manuscripts appeared soon after the first comprehen¬
sive studies of African cultures published from the 1820s to the 1860s (Denham
and Clapperton 1826, Koelle 1854a and b, Barth 1862-1866). As early as the 1880s,
the writing style of sub-Saharan origin was analysed and classified as Sudani by
Houdas (1886). Subsequent work was nevertheless scarce, and it was not until
after the 1960s that manuscripts of sub-Saharan origin again drew attention from
scholars working in the field of Islamic palaeography and codicology (Bivar 1968).

The lack of European scholarly interest in the West African Islamic manu¬
scripts is partly explained by the administrative policy of the French and British
colonies, and by the rise, in the British colonies, of missionary education. In
French West Africa, administrative support for Islamic education early in the 20*
century was soon superseded by the fear of pan-Islamic ideas. In 1911, Arabic
(including Arabic-based writing) was banned in judicial and administrative con¬
texts, and Arabic-language publications imported to French West Africa were cen¬
sored. The attitude of colonial officialdom even worsened during the First World
War, when the Ottoman Empire, claiming leadership of world Islam, joined the
Central Powers (Harrison 1988, 49-56, Robinson 1997, 572, Stewart 1997, 58-61,
Dobronravin 1999,90). Despite these official trends, some French colonial admin¬
istrators (the “administrateurs-ethnologues”), such as Robert Arnaud, Paul Marty,
and Maurice Delafosse, did play a significant role in collecting local Arabic and
Ajami literature. However, such scholarly activity was not always in harmony
with the mainstream policy - Delafosse, for example, “was more or less banned
from the colonies” after 1909 (Amselle and Sibeud 1998).

The development of Latin-based orthographies for the West African lan¬
guages (which went back to the alphabetic standardisation of the 1850s and was
summarised in Lepsius [1855]) also reduced academic incentives for studying
manuscript material in local languages written in the Arabic-based script known
as Ajami.^

3 Arabic script was adopted by many communities in West Africa, independently of the linguis¬
tic affiliation of their languages. These scripts are externally and locally known as Ajami, from
Arabic 'ajam ‘non-Arabs’ by which medieval Arabs referred both to “incorrect” variants of the
Arabic language and to non-Arabic texts in Arabic scripts, like Persian in the Middle East or
Spanish and even Latin in Andalusia. The glosses in Arabic manuscripts were often marked as
'ajami or 'jm.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

115

The authoritarian inadequacy of colonial administration only added to the
negative attitude towards Arabic and Ajami writing. In the British Northern
Nigeria Protectorate, as a result of ignorance on the part of Brigadier Lugard,
the then High Commissioner of Northern Nigeria (1900-1906), Ajami, which had
traditionally been used for Hausa, was considered inappropriate on linguistic
grounds, and as a result the Romanization of Hausa took place (Philips 2004).
The British colonial administrators nevertheless showed sporadic interest in
the local Ajami writing tradition (Dobronravin 1999, 91, Philips 2004, 71). For
instance, Richmond Palmer - the Lieutenant-Governor of Northern Provinces
of Nigeria from 1925-1930 - collected and described various Arabic and Ajamic
manuscripts, one type of which will be considered in the present article.

1960, the Year of Africa- when most of the West African colonies gained inde¬
pendence from France and the United Kingdom - coincided with the publication
by A. D. H. Bivar (1960) of a dated Qur’anic manuscript produced in the second
half of the 17* century in the Old Borno Sultanate of north-east Nigeria. Bivar’s
article signalled a return by European scholars to the study of sub-Saharan man¬
uscripts. It was a breakthrough in many ways. First, Bivar reported the discovery
of the oldest dated Qur’an manuscript then known in sub-Saharan Africa (1080
AH/1669 CE). Second, he presented three other Qur’anic manuscripts of the Old
Borno Sultanate, two of which, on palaeographic grounds, he established were
older even than the dated one (both going back to the early 7* or late 6* cen¬
turies). Finally, Bivar discovered that all four Qur’ans had interlinear vernacu¬
lar glosses written in Ajami, representing Old Kanembu - an archaic variety of
Kanuri, a major West African language spoken in north-east Nigeria and around
Lake Chad.

Bivar’s discovery placed Kanuri as one of the oldest vnritten sub-Saharan
languages. Other West African languages known for their ancient Ajami writing
tradition include Songhay (the earliest dated text being epigraphic inscrip¬
tions in Arabic with some Songhay morphological items, forms of address, and
kinship terms on 11* or 12*-century marble tombstones in Gao (Moraes Farias
2001, CCXII-CCXV), Tamashek (the earliest written evidence is reported to be
16*-century [Gutelius 2000]), Wolof (17* century [Dobronravin 199,101]), Ful-
fulde (of which the earliest written evidence dates to the 18* century (Hunwick
and O’Fahey 1995, Bobboyi 2008,124), and Hausa (probably 17* century [Yahaya
1988, 31, Philips 2004, 56-7]).

The early adaptations of Arabic script to West African languages came about as
a result of the spread of Islam and, consequently, Arabic literacy. The first cultural
contacts between the sub-Saharan world with Muslim North Africa go back as far
as the 9* to 13* centuries, and different African regions took their Islamic influ¬
ences from different sources. Although West African Islam shares many common

116

Dmitry Bondarev

features across the whole region (such as adherence to the Maliki school of law
with widespread use of Maliki textbooks Risdla by Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d.
386/966) and Mukhtasar by al-Shaykh Khalil b. Ishaq (d. 767/1366) and popularity
of the book about the Prophet, Kitab-al-Shifa’ bi ta‘nf huquq al-Mustafd, com¬
posed by al-Qadi dyad (d. 543-4/1149) and an Islamic creed al-‘Aqida al-Sughra
by Mahammad b. Yusuf al-Sanusi [d. 895/1490]), there are several distinct tradi¬
tions which differ from each other in various ways.

One of the salient differences manifests itself in the varieties of Arabic script
used for writing Arabic and local languages. All these types, collectively called
Sudani, belong to the Maghribi group of the Arabic script typical of the western
part of the Muslim world, i.e., Andalusia (before the 15‘*' century) and North
Africa/Maghreb.

Despite the fact that the first description of sub-Saharan African hands in
Arabic script (Houdas 1886) was published more than 120 years ago, with fol¬
low-up research undertaken by Bivar (1960, 1968), Dobronravin (1999, 2004),
Blair (2006, 2008) and Nobili (2011) the typology of script types in Africa is still
in its infancy. Although the amount of manuscript material available for study
has increased tremendously in the last forty years, thanks to access to state and
private libraries in West Africa (Mali, Niger, Nigeria, etc), Europe and the United
States, sub-Saharan manuscript studies still remain a marginal field for Islamic
palaeographers (cf. Deroche 2004, 86).''

The manuscripts discussed in this article are products of the Kanem-Borno
writing tradition. They include the monolingual Kanuri genealogical lists
(gargams) of Kanem-Borno rulers collected by Palmer, and the bilingual (Arabic-
Old Kanembu) early Borno Qur’anic manuscripts first published by Bivar.

4 Different types of sub-Saharan hands possibly match with what Dobronravin (1999, 94) con¬
siders distinct regional Ajami writing traditions of West Africa. The breakdown is as follows: 1)
Ajami among the western Fulani of the West Sudan (Pulaar area) (modern south Mauritania, Sen¬
egal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, and south-west Mali); 2) Ajami among the Soninke (south
Mauritania, west Mali, east Senegal); 3) Ajami among the Wolof and Serer (Senegal); 4) Ajami
among the Susu (Soso) and Manding, influenced by the western Fulani writing tradition (Guinea,
Gamiba, Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Cote dTvore, Ghana, and Togo); 5) Ajami in the Volta river
basin and among the Asante (Ghana, Togo, Benin, and Burkina Faso); 6) Ajami among the Song-
hay and Zarma (Mali and Niger); 7) Ajami of Sokoto and Adamawa mainly in Flausa and eastern
dialects of Fula (north and west Nigeria); 8) Ajami in Yorubaland and Nupeland (southwest Nige¬
ria); 9) Ajamiof Kanemand Bornu in Saharan (Kanuri) and Chadic (Flausa and others) languages
(northeast Nigeria). See Nobili (2011) for an alternative typology of West African script types.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

117

2 Kanem-Borno

As is typical of other West African societies, the ancient Kanem and its succes¬
sor the Borno Sultanate were multilingual polities populated by speakers of
Kanembu, Kanuri, Tubu, (all three Saharan languages of the Nilo-Saharan lin¬
guistic phylum), Tuareg, Arabic, Buduma (Afro-Asiatic languages), Bilala (a Nilo-
Saharan language), Fulfulde (a Niger-Congo language) and many others (map 1).
The political and religious history of Kanem-Borno is bound most closely to
three languages: Kanembu - the language of Kanem; Kanuri (the lingua franca
of the Borno Sultanate) and Classical Arabic: the language of Islam and Islamic
education.^

Map 1: Languages of Kanem and Borno

5 Kanuri is a major Nilo-Saharan language of the Saharan linguistic family, spoken in north-east
Nigeria, south-east Niger, north-west Chad, and north Cameroon by about 4 million people. The
term Kanuri covers both the western dialect clusters - Kanuri - mainly spoken in Nigeria and
Niger and the eastern clusters - Kanembu - mostly spoken in the Republic of Chad. There is no
general agreement on whether Kanuri and Kanembu are different languages or dialects.

118

Dmitry Bondarev

Kanem originated in the 9* century CE to the northeast of Lake Chad. It was a
centre of Islam in the historical Central Sudan by the 13* century or even earlier.
The presence of Islam, which was adopted by the Sayfawa ruling dynasty of
Kanem, and the royal court’s particularly strong interest in Qur’anic learning in
this early period are recorded in various external and local sources.® With the
development of Qur’anic studies in the ancient Kanem (13* to 14* centuries),
Kanembu of the early Kanem period {Kanem-bu: ‘Kanem-people’/ ‘the Kanem
people’) became the language of Qur’anic interpretation, evolving into a codi¬
fied technical language still preserved in modern Kanuri society (see section 4.7
below).

In the late 14* century, the Kanem rulers {mai’s) and population moved to
the Borno province of Kanem on the western edge of Lake Chad. By the end of the
15* century, Borno had become heir in the Lake Chad basin to the Islamic culture
of Kanem. The city of Gazargamu (variant spelling Ngazargamu), established as
a capital by Sultan ‘Ali Gaji b. Dunama (mai Ali Dunamami), was the economic,
political and religious centre of Borno until its collapse in the Fulani jihad of 1808.

In the course of the Kanem migration to Borno, the western dialects of Kanuri
spoken in and around Gazargamu became the lingua franca for the vast territories
controlled by the Borno Sultanate. As a result, Kanembu dialects of the former
Kanem territories east of Lake Chad were marginalised. Kanembu is now spoken
by less than 9% of the whole Kanuri- speaking population.^

The ruling Sayfawa dynasty of Kanem-Borno was closely linked with the
Muslim scholarly community: the ‘ulama’ (plural of Arabic ‘alim ‘a scholar’).
The mai’s (rulers) granted the ‘ulamd’ written charters of privilege {mahrams)
which exempted them and their descendants from tax and war service (Bobboyi
1992, 1993). The mahrams were written in Arabic, which was also used in the
composition of historical and genealogical accounts such as the chronicle “The
Borno expeditions of Idris Alauma (1564-1576)’’ composed by the Grand Imam
of Borno Ahmad b. Fartuwa who served at the court of the Sayfawa Sultan Idris
b. ‘Ali (Idris Alauma) (Lange 1987) or the Diwdn salatin Barno ‘Accounts of the
Borno Sultans’ (Lange 1977). Together with fiqh (jurisprudence) and tawhid (the¬
ology) - the standard fields of Islamic study and writing - Arabic was a resource

6 For external sources see for example historical accounts by Al-Bakri (5*^ AH/11**' CE c.), Yaqut
(7**' AH/IS'** CE c.), Ibn Sa'id al-Maghribi (7'*' AH/IS*** CE c.), Abu al-Fida’ (S* AH/14*>’ CE c.), Ibn
Khaldun (S*** AH/W® CE c.) in [Levtzion & Hopkins] (1981). Local sources are mainly represented
by Diwan Salatin Borno (Lange 1977), mahrams (charters of privilege) and gargams (genealogical
lists) (Palmer 1928,1936, Lange 1977,1987, Bobboyi 1992).

7 Ethnologue’s (2014) estimate of Kanembu speakers is 461,000 in 2006.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

119

for “considerable literary activity in the poetry of eulogy, elegy, satire, and
pietism” (Hunvdck 1997, 211).

Old Kanembu (the language of Kanem) and Kanuri (the language of Borno)
also had a long literary tradition of which at present we only know the gargams
(genealogical lists), vnritten in Kanuri, and the Old Kanembu commentaries
{tafsir) on the Qur’an and translations from various Arabic religious texts.

There are no extant manuscripts of the Kanem period and only a few early
Borno manuscripts in Old Kanembu, Kanuri, and Arabic have survived. Two major
events at the beginning of the 19^^ century drastically influenced literary life in
Borno, and the survival of sources for the old script culture. First, in 1808, the city
of Gazargamu was sacked in the course of the Fulani Jihad. There is evidence that
some Qur’anic manuscripts comprising the Arabic and Old Kanembu commen¬
taries were plundered as religious booty,® while the non-Qur’anic or manuscripts
directly related to the Sayfawa dynasty were most probably destroyed, being con¬
sidered hostile or impious by jihad leaders. Then, in 1846 the Sayfawa, the ruling
Kanem-Borno dynasty, was replaced by the Kanemi dynasty founded by Shehu
Mohammad al-Kanemi. From that date on, documents related to the Sayfawa
were officially condemned to such an extent that at the time of the Barth expedi¬
tion in 1851 it was, according to Barth, dangerous to possess the genealogical lists
of the displaced dynasty (Lange 1977, 7).® These “banned” manuscripts are the
subject of the next section.

3 Gargams

Gargam (Kanuri gargdm, ‘history, legend’), also known in literature as Girgam
(Palmer 1928,1936) is an oral and written genre which represents the genealogi¬
cal lists of the Sayfawa dynasty, covering about 900 years of successive rulers
{mai’s). The gargams were most probably based on oral tradition and served as a
mnemonic skeleton for fuller and more detailed versions of the chronicles of the

8 One of the manuscripts discussed below (MS.4MM) travelled from Borno to the Fulani emir¬
ate Gwandu where it has since been handed down in the family of Waziri for many generations
(Bivar 1960,199).

9 Although, as Lange (1987, 14, n.4) suggests, there is evidence invalidating Barth’s statement
in that one of the highest officials of the al-Kanemi dynasty possessed a copy of the mentioned
manuscript “The Borno expeditions of Idris Alauma (1564-1576)” composed by Ahmad b. Far-
tuwa, who served at the court of the Sayfawa Sultan Idris Alauma.

120

Dmitry Bondarev

mai’s of Kanem-Borno. This is evident from textual variation attested in survived
gargam manuscripts.“

The textual structure of gargams is rather simple and plain. Each ruler is
briefly described by name, father’s name, and the place where he reigned and
died. Sometimes, relocation of the court or a significant event associated with a
particular mai, such as a war or a famine, may deserve a line.^^

The gargams show an identical formal layout with wide margins. They are
written in a careful, sometimes calligraphic hand comparable to the layout of the
Qur’anic manuscripts touched on later.

It is not clear when the tradition of written genealogical lists in the form of
gargams originated. The only dated gargam was apparently written in the late 18*
century, as is evident from Palmer (1936,107): “The best list of Mais of Borno now
obtainable is dated 1209 AH /1794/5 AD.” In his translation of the dated Kanuri
gargam. Palmer does not provide the text where he read the date; so it is unclear
where the date was put in the original manuscripts and what language it was
written in. To the best of my knowledge, all other gargams, mostly collected or
copied by Palmer during the two first decades of the 20* century, are not dated.
On the basis of Palmer’s notes about possessors of gargams (Palmer 1928, II, 35,
III, 36), it is likely that the written genealogical lists were carefully preserved by
local families as old and precious artefacts; which in turn may corroborate an
early date for the manuscripts. In the same collection of translations of the Borno
manuscripts Palmer (1928, II, 116-18) suggested a date for one such genealogical
list, the “Zanua Gargam”; “this gargam must date from about the year 1795 or
so for mai ‘Ali Hajimi died in 1793”. Since Palmer’s argument is only based on
the last ruler in the list who indeed died in either in 1793 or, according to Lange
(1977, 82), in 1792, the date is no more than a terminus post quern which in itself
is however helpful when dealing with undated chronicles. The criterion “last
ruler in the list” serves well to establish that the gargams I have so far consulted

10 Cf. Lange (1977, 8) referring to Barth’s assumption : “ce mode de composition aurait ete inau-
gure au debut du XVI siecle,... auparavant les informations auraient ete transmises oralement.”

11 A more complete type of chronicle with extended accounts of events exists only in a single
Arabic manuscript, Diwan Salatin Barnu Accounts of the Borno sultans’, collected by the fa¬
mous German explorer Heinrich Barth in 1850’s (Lange 1977). It is difficult to ascertain whether
these Arabic written chronicles were part of a tradition that recorded the acts of mai’s in both
Arabic and Kanuri, or individual undertakings by enthusiastic courtiers to write down Kanuri
oral histories in Arabic, probably modelled on the comprehensive accounts of mai Idris Alauma
written in Arabic in the lO* AH/16**' CE century by Ahmad b. Fartuwa, mentioned above. The
Diwan not only differs from gargams in its more detailed descriptions of rulers’ lives, but also in
the layout and style of the writing. The Diwan manuscript was produced without ruling and it
almost lacks margins.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

121

were certainly written after the Sayfawa dynasty had come to an end. It is known
that the last mai ‘Ali Bara (Ibrahim) Gana mentioned at the end of each of these
manuscripts died in May 1846 (Brenner 1973, 65-6, Lange 1977, 82). Therefore,
the gargams could have been written any time from 1846 to the first years of the
20* century when Palmer started collecting them. Our knowledge of the codi-
cological and palaeographic features of the surviving gargams is too limited to
support a more precise chronological identification. The copies I have examined
are photographic reproductions made from black and white microfilms which are
useful only for identification of page size, text layout, type of script, and - very
uncertainly - condition of paper.^^ The most representative collection of micro¬
film copies of gargams (from the “Hunwick collection”) is deposited in Depart¬
ment of History, Northwestern University (Evanston, USA). Many of them came
from Ibadan University Library in Nigeria. In 1964, according to the records on the
order forms, Ibadan University Library loaned original manuscripts from the Jos
Museum, Nigeria for microfilming. At that time, the Gargams were part of the so-
called “Palmer Papers” collection. When I visited the Jos Museum in December
2006,1 could not find any trace of the original manuscripts. Whether they have
been lost or transferred to the National Archive of Kaduna, Nigeria is yet to be
clarified.

3.1 Hunwick collection

I now give a description of the Gargam manuscripts as they are represented by
the four copies of the Hunwick collection (catalogued as “Hunwick/No”). The
gargams were produced on separate single leaves - a typical West African form
of loose-leaf binding. Leaf size varies substantially between manuscripts, from a
smaller octavo format of 15 x ll cm (e.g., H(unwick)/280, H./282) to a larger quarto
size: 20 x 16 (H/279) and 23 x 17 cm (H/281).^^ Judging from the contours of the
paper as they appear on the microfilm copies, I would assume that MS H/282 is
older than others for the simple reason that its corners are oval and slightly torn
(a sign of wear) while the corners of the other manuscripts look rectangular and
less worn, which indirectly, may indicate a later period of production. But sharper
corners could also be well explained by better conditions of preservation, and
hence are of little use in relative dating.

12 These copies were generously provided by Prof. John Hunwick of Northwestern University in
1999.

13 This Gargam was published by Palmer (1913,78-83) with an inaccurate Latin-based transcrip¬
tion and what, in many cases is an erroneous English translation.

122

Dmitry Bondarev

3.2 Layout and script

All gargams have a distinctive layout (Figure 1). The text is written in vertically
arranged rectangular blocks with wide margins: it runs from 11-14 lines on a
smaller page to 14-16 lines on the larger leaves. MS. H/282 shows the greatest
regularity: it has 11 lines per page except on the last (f.6v) where the twelfth line
was most probably deemed the last line of the whole composition. This is evident
from the elongated form of the final word <kargo>^‘' ‘he lived’ (a stretched line
between the letters ghayn and wdw), which was written for visual symmetry to
fill the width of the text block (Figure 2). Text lines are almost perfectly even and
straight in all four manuscripts, with only MS. H/279 showing less careful colum-
nation. This may suggest that the scribes used a ruling frame (Ar. mistara, see an
example of a ruling board used in Timbuktu in Hunwick and Jay Boye 2008, 98).

Fig- 1: The opening page of a Borno Gargam (genealogical list), Evanston, Northwestern
University, Hunwick collection, MS.H/280.

14 Angular brackets <> are used for graphic representation. In Old Kanembu data, a macron (“)
above the vowel represents the so-called “weak” letters used in Classical Arabic for representa¬
tion of long vowels, but used for high and falling tone in Old Kanembu. High tone in Kanuri is
indicated with an acute accent (e.g. a), low tone is unmarked, and falling with circumflex (d).

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

123

Fig- 2: The last page of the Gargam. The last word is elongated to fill the width of the text.
Evanston, Northwestern University, Hunwick collection, MS.H/282.

124

Dmitry Bondarev

The gargams start with a basmalah - the traditional opening, so called by the first
three words of the invocation bVsmi Alldhi {ar-rahmdn ar-rahlm) ‘in the name of
God, the Merciful, the Compassionate’. The manuscripts do not have colophons
in the sense of additional information about the text, writer, date etc., but there is
always a kind of “tail”, such as elongated shape of the word mentioned above in
relation to MS. H/282, or Borno Arabic kumila bi ‘awn-alldh ‘finished with God’s
help’ as in MS. H/281, or the last word written in a separate line in the left corner
of the text block followed by the smaller script Arabic word kumila ‘finished’
below that last word.^^ These help to visually identify the end of the composition.

The gargam manuscripts have no punctuation. New sentences start imme¬
diately after the final word of the preceding sentence: a common practice in
Maghribi and sub-Saharan manuscripts. In West Africa, the “zero punctuation”
principle existed together with marked sentence- or passage-division. Dividing
marks include a “three-dot” symbol for sentence separation, or division by red
colour used on the first word of the new passage. Neither of these is attested in
the gargams, though colour punctuation should not be ruled out until coloured
copies are available for inspection.

Indication of page order is supplied by catchwords written below the bottom
line of the text and copying the first word(s) of the following folio. They are of a
slightly smaller size than the main text and, as is typical of many West African
manuscripts, they run parallel to it - a practice that originated in the Maghreb in
the pre-9* AH/IS* CE century (Deroche 2006, 97).

The arrangement of catchwords is by no means the only archaic feature of
the written gargams. As part of the Kanem-Borno Ajami tradition classified above
as “type 7”, gargams are characterised by a distinctive script type related to an
old MagribijAndalusi style of Arabic script used in North Africa and Spain from
the 5* AH/11**' CE to the B* AH/M* CE century. I will expand on this issue below
in the section on the Borno Qur’anic manuscripts, because they are available in
colour and therefore more adequately represent the real palaeographic character¬
istics of Kanem-Borno Ajami writing.

The manuscripts are not based on a written archetype. This is evident
from different order of rulers’ succession and lack of orthographic conven¬
tions. For example, the place name Gazargamu - the most famous city in the
Borno history - is written differently in four gargams: MS. H/279: <gasarkmo>,
MS. H/280: <gazarkmo>, MS. H/281: <gazarkomo>, and MS. H/282: <qasargmo>.

15 The Borno Arabic form kumila is a variant of the Classical Arabic kammala ‘finished’. This
reading is found in bilingual Borno manuscripts (e.g. in al-'Aqlda al-Sughrd, the collection of
Dr Kyari Sherif, Maiduguri). Cf. modern Shuwa (Nigerian) Arabic: kimil(a) as intransitive of
kammal(a) ‘finished’ (Jonathan Owens, p.c.)

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

125

Interestingly, the word <kargd> ‘he lived’ is written identically across all gargams.
Difference in the spelling of Gazargamu may serve as independent linguistic evi¬
dence - in addition to the “last ruler” principle - that the gargams were written
after it was destroyed in 1808 and its educated circles - who might have agreed on
a conventional spelling of the city’s name - dispersed all across Borno territory.
Variation in place names, but unity in the verbal form <kargd>, may also point to
the oral origin of the gargams (i.e., they were written down as heard) and their
relatively recent existence in manuscript form after 1808.

3.3 Language

In his publications (1913,1928,1936) of material on the history of Kanem-Borno,
Palmer claimed some gargams were written in Kanuri and others in Kanembu.
Subsequent scholarship has not questioned his identification. For example, Nur
Alkali (1987, 2-3), presented excerpts from two gargams as illustrations of Kanuri
and Kanembu vnriting, one in Kanuri, and the other in Kanembu, both quoted
from Palmer (1928).

A closer examination of the language of the gargam manuscripts suggests
that it is an archaic variety of Kanuri spoken most probably in and around the
old Borno capital Birni Gazargamu, which was founded by mai Ali Dunamami
in 1488 and destroyed during the Fulbe jihad in 1808. This interpretation is not
conclusive because of the paucity of linguistic data available in the gargams. As
mentioned before, their content is restricted to the names of mai’s, and the places
where they lived or were buried. A typical gargam sentence consists of a subject
(i.e., the name of mai N) modified by an apposition (i.e., ‘son of X’), a place name
with a locative marker (= ‘in P’) and a predicate, almost always the verb <kargd>
‘he lived’ (a past tense of the verb daga ‘live’).

MS. H/281 f.2v

mai (ruler) Ali Dunama-son.of Gazargamu-in he.lived

mai Ali, son of Dumama, he lived in Gazargamu

Notwithstanding such restricted data, three diagnostic items help to identify
the language of gargams as belonging to Kanuri (i.e. the western dialect cluster)
rather than to Kanembu (the eastern dialect cluster). First, the third-person sin¬
gular independent pronoun shi ‘he/she’ is used throughout all gargam texts. Sec¬
ondly, there is the locative marker -n, ‘in’; finally there is the past-tense verbal

126

Dmitry Bondarev

form <kargd> ‘he lived’. These items are identical with the corresponding data in
Gazar, a Kanuri dialect of the late 18th century spoken in the area of Birni Gaz-
argamu. Gazar, as spoken by a Kanuri Ali Aisami in his late 60s, was documented
in the 1830s by the German missionary and linguist Sigismund Koelle (Koelle
1854a, 73). Two of these items - <shi> ‘s/he’ and <-n> ‘in’ - are phonetically and
morphologically different from the corresponding data (i.e., <ti> ‘s/he’ and <-lan>
‘in’) of written Old Kanembu texts (which are represented only by the Qur’anic
manuscripts discussed later). The verbal form <kargd> is likewise not attested in
the Borno Qur’ans.

4 Bilingual Borno manuscripts

The Borno Qur’anic manuscripts differ from the gargams in almost every aspect,
including language, content, function, period of production, and historical con¬
tinuity. The only shared features are the script type and, to an extent, the page
layout.

Unlike the gargams, the Borno Qur’ans have intensively been studied from
the perspectives of various disciplines, including codicology and palaeography
(Bivar 1960,1968,2007; Bondarev 2006a, Blair 2008), linguistics (Bondarev 2005,
2006a, 2008, 2013, 2014), and Qur’anic/Islamic studies (Mustapha 1987, Bond¬
arev 2006b, Al-Achtar and Bondarev 2008, Bondarev 2013a, forthcoming). In this
section, I draw on this research to describe some salient features of the manu¬
scripts and their content.

4.1 Collection

The microfilm and digital collection of Borno bilingual manuscripts on which this
account is based (inventory number MS. 380808) was founded in 2003-2007 at
the School of Qriental and African Studies. In 2003, David Bivar donated to SQAS
Library black and white microfilms of the four incomplete Qur’an manuscripts
that had been the object of his initial 1960 and 1968 publications.^® This corpus
consisted of 230 folios in photographic and microfilm form, subsequently all digi-

16 David Bivar took photographs of these Qur’ans in 1958-59 in northern and north-east
Nigeria, on behalf of the Nigerian Antiquities Department which at that time was based in Jos.
Only some of the original negative microfilms of these manuscripts are still deposited in the Jos
Museum Library. Others have probably been lost (my field work data, 2006).

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

127

tised. In 2005-07, in the course of fieldwork carried out in northern Nigeria by
Abba Isa Tijani and myself, the corpus of digitized manuscripts was increased
to more than 4600 folios, including four more Qur’an copies and fourteen other
bilingual (Arabic and Old Kanembu) manuscripts.^^ The collection now spans a
period of about 500 years, from the oldest manuscripts found by Bivar, which
include the so called “Shettima Kagu Qur’an” (MS. 2ShK) possibly created in the
16*^ or early 17* centuries; the “Imam Ibrahim Qur’an” (MS. 3ImI) with Arabic
commentary (tafsir) on the Qur’an finished on 1st Jumadi II 1080 AH, equiva¬
lent to 26th October, CE 1669; the “Malam Muhammadu Qur’an” (probably early
to middle 17* century); and the “Yerima Mustafa Qur’an” (late 17* to early 18*
century).^® All four manuscripts are believed to have been written in or around the
old Borno capital of Birni Gazargamu, although some linguistic evidence coun¬
ters this assumption (see discussion on the language of the glosses in section 4.6).

The rest of the collection belongs to a later period. The manuscripts date
from approximately the 18* to the late 20* centuries, and were created in dif¬
ferent places in northern Nigeria, from Katsina in the northwest to Maiduguri in
the northeast. Qne text - a translation of a famous traditional Arabic grammar
{Nahw Ajurrumiyya) into Qld Kanembu - was written only recently, in 2007, by
Imam Habib Ali of Maiduguri.

4.2 Paper

The manuscripts were kept unbound in loose folios. This practice changed in the
early 20* century with wide introduction of European sewn notebooks; therefore,
more recent non-Qur’an manuscripts take the form of notebooks or folded folios.

17 In November 2005, one of the four initial manuscripts, the “Yerima Mustafa Qur’an”, was
expanded to a complete Qur’an (724 pages) by means of digital reproduction made from a Nige¬
rian original which was in possession of the late Yerima Mukhtar Mustapha, the Waziri (Vizier)
of Borno. In 2010, I photographed MS.4MM (435 digital pages) which is now in possession of
Abdullahi Umar, the Vizier of Kebbi, north-east Nigeria. I am grateful to the Vizier for permission
to photograph and reproduce MS.4MM. The manuscript is incomplete and the initial quarter of
it is in very poor condition, many leaves being glued together because of water damage. In 2013,
during my visit to fos, I photographed MS.3ImI (620 digital pages) which had been found in the
los Museum Library by Michael Biddle in 2011. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the original of
the fourth Qur’an - MS.2ShK - which was shown to Bivar in Borno. The families who possessed
MS.2ShK believe the manuscript has been lost.

18 Another document relevant to this period is a composite copy of the Qur’an deposited in the
Bibliotheque National de France (N334 Arab 402), eleven folios of which (248v-253v) represent a
bilingual Arabic - Qld Kanembu manuscript of IT* century (Deroche 1985, 48).

128

Dmitry Bondarev

The early four Qur’ans were written on large paper of folio size which is approxi¬
mately equal in all four manuscripts (about 34 cm x 21.5-25.5 cm). The edges of
the leaves show signs of wear, and the manuscripts are no longer their original
size.

The two Qur’an copies produced in Katsina from approximately the 18* to
early 19* centuries, and the other non-Qur’anic manuscripts on loose leaves are
written on smaller format paper, usually quarto size (approximately 21 cm x 15 cm).

It is unclear what type of paper was used in (possibly the oldest) MS.2ShK
manuscripts. Paper characteristics such as chain-lines and watermarks or coun¬
termarks might be helpful in identifying an approximate date of paper production
and, hence, in dating.^® But this task becomes very difficult without direct inspec¬
tion of the originals. Having applied the “virtual restoration” approach (DIAMM
2008) to the chain-line patterns in the early Borno Qu’rans published by Bivar, I
earlier suggested (Bondarev 2007), that MS.2ShK might have been written on an
old variety of Oriental paper produced between the eleventh and 5* centuries,
but this assumption needs further investigation.

The dated MS.3ImI was written on Italian paper with a “tre lune” watermark.
Thus, this is the earliest documented record of the “tre lune” paper used in sub-
Saharan Africa, dating back to earlier than 1080/1669 (the year of completion
indicated in the colophon of the manuscript).

MS.4MM also displays a “tre lune” watermark (and no countermarks) in a
heavy glossy paper with density of laid lines at 20 lines per 30mm, and chain
lines positioned at regular 30mm intervals. It is nevertheless impossible to date
the paper basing only on these features because various Italian tre lune papers
were produced from the 16* century until 1900, with the majority of them without
countermarks (Michaelle Biddle, p.c., see also Briquet 1907,314-5, Nikolaev 1954,
64, Eineder 1960, 88). On the other hand, I could have overlooked the counter-

19 ‘Chain lines’ are the imprints left on paper by the cords (of reed, bamboo, grass-stalk etc.)
used for cross-fixing the main supporting cords (called “wire or laid lines”) in the mould over
which the paper pulp is poured and then allowed to dry. The spacing of chain lines and density
and thickness of wire lines may provide approximate chronological information for Islamic man¬
uscripts, which are otherwise only rarely dated (Humbert 1998). Another, better-known means
of paper identification are watermarks used by the paper manufacturers as a kind of “logo” or
identification. In the 16*^ century (the period closest to our oldest manuscript 2ShK), the scribes
of the Maghreb and Ottoman Empire (linked to Borno by trade and religious routes (Martin 1969,
1972) used both non-watermarked Oriental paper produced in the Middle East and watermarked
European paper, although the latter had started to dominate the paper market by the IT® century
(Deroche 2006,57). If a manuscript is written on non-watermarked paper, or the watermarks can¬
not be seen for various reasons, only chain and laid lines serve as evidence for the possible origin
of the paper and the date of its production.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

129

marks because I only had two hours (before sunset) to photograph and examine
the whole manuscript. Judging from the overall palaeographic look of the MS.4MM
I would rather agree with Bivar who suggested a 17* century date. Interestingly, a
Maghribi manuscript dated 1692 (Dublin, Chester Beatty Library, Ar.4226) has tre
lune paper with a countermark VG and trefoil that was produced in 1660s (Niko¬
laev 1954, N230). This paper shows great similarity to the paper used for MS.4MM.

MS.IYM was written on paper resembling that of MS.4MM, i.e., vdth the same
density of laid lines (20 lines per 30mm) and 30mm spacing between the chain
lines. However, I could not find any watermarks or countermarks when I was
inspecting the manuscript in situ in 2005 and 2009.

4.3 Layout

Page layout is defined by several features: the arrangement of the text against the
margins, the number of lines per page, the structure and means of text division,
and manuscript ornamentation. Manuscripts like the Borno bilingual collection,
which have multiple contents, have multiple layout structures. Three separate
text arrangements must be clearly differentiated in the Qur’anic manuscripts.
These are (a) the main text - the Qur’an, (b) the translation of the Qur’an into Qld
Kanembu, and (c) commentaries on the Qur’an in Arabic.

a) The main text: Qur’an

While the number of lines and the width of margins at the side, top, and bottom
of the page are all manuscript-specific features (see Bondarev 2006a, 118-123),
internal text divisions, often ornamental in character, are to an extent typical
of all Magribi manuscripts of the Qur’an. Features common in most Maghribi
Qur’anic manuscripts (see discussions in Deroche 2004, 67-96, 2006, 233-236)
include the rectangular and/or rounded decorations in sura al-fdtiha (the first
chapter of the Qur’an) and at the beginning of sum al-baqara (the second and
longest chapter); trefoils (three petals) in red ink for verse separation; triangle¬
shaped sign called khamsa ‘five’ (represented by the isolated Arabic letter hd’ that
has a numerical value of 5) outlined in colour but filled in black, used for every
fifth verse; and roundels for every tenth verse. Qn the other hand, in Borno these
typical features acquired a distinctive style renowned for the diversity of asym¬
metrical ornamental motifs in rectangular and roundel shapes used for internal
text division (see Figure 3); also cf. Brockett’s 1987, 46-47 description of a similar
Borno-type manuscript.

Dmitry Bondarev

130 -

Fig- 3: Borno Qur’an. The beginning of the second chapter sura al-baqara. Rectangular and
roundel shapes used for internal text division. London, SOAS, Photographic and digital collec¬
tion MS. 380808, MS.2ShK.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

131

b) Translation of the Qur’an into Old Kanembu

Glosses in Old Kanembu are usually positioned interlineally, parallel to the
main text in earlier manuscripts and diagonal in later copies. They are typically
written above the corresponding Qur’anic text, but not necessarily aligned with
it. As a general rule, interlinear glosses represent two levels of translation of the
original Qur’anic Arabic: morpheme and word-for-word translations. Marginal
glosses are also common, and used mainly for the third level of translation: i.e.,
phrase or sentence translation of either the Qur’anic text or (less commonly) an
Arabic commentary {tafsir). Both interlineal and marginal glosses may be written
upside down, which indirectly points to the function of the bilingual manuscripts
(see section 4.5 below). There are two correction signs used for writing in Qld
Kanembu. Qne is an “insertion” marker for pointing to the place in the Qur’anic
text where the glosses should be read (the upper part of the letter ‘ain (^), an
abbreviation of ‘aldmat al-mj’ ila al-hdmish ‘mark pointing to the margin’ (cf.
Gacek 2007, 222); another is a “linker” marker used for connecting two separate
lines of a gloss into one phrase or sentence.

c) Arabic annotations to the Qur’an {tafsir)

Arabic tafsir in the Borno Qur’ans is in essence a compilation of quotations from
various authoritative treatises (Al-Achtar and Bondarev 2008, Bondarev forth¬
coming). They are normally positioned in compact or elongated blocks, generally
in the margins. Long passages of commentary normally circle round the Qur’anic
text. Arabic annotations may also appear interlineally, resulting in textual inter¬
actions between the separate commentaries in Arabic and Qld Kanembu. In
MS.2ShK and MS.BIml, for example, this worsens the legibility of each text (Figure
4). The marginal text blocks frequently have their sides aligned, a technique used
to set different quotations apart. The end of the quoted passage is usually sig¬
nalled by the Arabic sahha ‘verified’ (Figure 5) or by a “three dots” mark.

The Qur’an text, Qld Kanembu glosses, and the tafsir were not created in a
single act of copying. The manuscript consisted at first only of the sacred text,
with the glosses and tafsir added later in the life-cycle of the book by various
hands. The incorporation of secondary texts was possible due to wide margins
with ample space between the lines of the Qur’anic text (see Figure 6).

4.4 Script

The Qur’an text is vnritten with diacritical marks (‘pointing’) for vowels - an
invariable feature across the Islamic world. Like the Qur’an text, the Qld Kanembu
glosses are also fully vocalised. These assist the reader in distinguishing between

132

Dmitry Bondarev

. ..*>*•.Tvo

y,^ Jfe

ItN: S?'1w!^Siii^-ar-ttfflife

'■ i'5-*^'‘!S58

"iAfOWW
\ I > 'arfSitt^

"tti-

1^ V

Fig. 4: Borno Qur’an. The first chapter sura al-fatiha. Interactions between the separate com¬
mentaries in Arabic and Old Kanembu. London, SOAS, Photographic and digital collection MS.
380808, MS.BIml.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

133

Fig- 5: Borno Qur’an. The second chapter sura at-baqara, verse 33. The marginal text blocks
have their sides aligned. The end of the quoted passage is signalled by the Arabic sahha ‘veri¬
fied’. London, SOAS, Photographic and digital collection MS. 380808, MS.2ShK.

134

Dmitry Bondarev

Fig. 6: Qur’an. Composite volume produced by Kanuri-speaking '^ulamd’ in Hausa-speaking
Katsina (NAK). Dated 1117/1705. These three folios demonstrate three separate text arrange¬
ments, i.e., (6a) the Qur’anic text, (6b) the Qur’anic text with Old Kanembu glosses, and (6c)
The Qur’an, Old Kanembu and Arabic commentary (tafslr). The incorporation of secondary texts
was possible due to wide margins with ample space between the lines of the Qur’anic text.
Kaduna, National Archives of Nigeria (NAK), MS.AR33. (a) The Qur’anic text with wide margins.
No annotations. Kaduna, NAK, MS.AR33, f. 476v.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

135

Fig. 6: (b) Old Kanembu annotations added between the lines of the main Qur’anic text.

Kaduna, NAK, MS.AR33, f.265v.

the Old Kanembu commentaries and those in Arabic, the latter being exclusively
non-vocalised in the manner typical of standard Arabic script. Non-vocalised
Arabic commentaries are predominantly written by confident hands unlike Old
Kanembu glosses which are usually penned by unsteady hands (like in MS.IYM
and MS.3ImI). The differences in letter-forms and general style between Old

136

Dmitry Bondarev

Fig. 6: (c) Arabic commentary (tafsir) in rectangular blocks written after Old Kanembu
annotations were added. Kaduna, NAK, MS.AR33, f.364v.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

137

Kanembu glosses and Arabic annotations may indicate that the Old Kanembu
texts were written by students, and the Arabic commentaries by teachers or
people with advanced knowledge in tafsir studies.

All manuscripts in the collection belong to an ancient calligraphic tradition
characterised by heavy and angular strokes, and by distinctive letter-shapes and
pointing (Bivar 1960,1968, Bondarev 2006a). Bivar (1968) suggested that the Borno
writing tradition represents the ‘IfriqV style,^” so called by Ibn Khaldun, the North
African historian of the 4**^ century who wrote that the old angular Ifriqi script
known in North Africa was being replaced by a more delicate {Maghribi) Andalusi
script brought by the Spanish Muslims escaping the Reconquista. According to
Ibn Khaldun, the old Ifriqi script was preserved in the Sahara in south-western
Tunisia. Bivar (1968,9) suggested that the old Ifriqi style was also preserved south
of the Sahara in the Sahel with the earliest attestation known in the Borno Qur’ans.
In my earlier publications (Bondarev 2006a, 2006b, and 2007) I followed Bivar’s
definition. Stanley (1999a, 32-34), however, criticised this view arguing that the
Borno script style was a member of the Maghribi group of scripts whereas Ifriqi
was distinct from both. Blair (2008, 66) has further supported these arguments
and shown that “the script used in the Qur’an manuscripts from West Africa...
shares many characteristics with the western Maghribi style used in Morocco and
Andalusia.” In 2008,1 had the opportunity to compare the Borno Qur’ans with a
number of Maghribi/Andalusi manuscripts (of 6'*^ AH/12* CE to 11* AH/17* CE-
century date) in the Chester Beatty Library (CBL), Dublin, and I now accept the
view of Stanley and Blair on the close relationship between the Maghribi hands
and the Borno writing tradition. However, contra Blair (2008, 69), I maintain the
view that Borno variety did not derive directly from the Maghribi type of script,
but rather from their common “Kufic”, or the early ‘Abbasid (Deroche 2006, 216),
ancestor as suggested by Bivar (1968). For lack of space, I can only briefly sum¬
marise the results of this comparison.

Many graphic and stylistic features of the angular calligraphic script of the
Qur’an text in the Borno manuscripts are similar to corresponding features of
the script of the miniature Maghribi/Andalusi Qur’ans of the 6* AH/12* CE -
17* AH/13* CE centuries, such as manuscripts CBL Is.l443, Is.l444, Bibliotheque
Nationale de France Arabe 386 (Deroche 2004, 82), and especially a miniature
Qur’an in a more angular hand produced in Valencia in 1199-1200. The most
salient features include angular elongated letters kdf, ta’/da’ (with a slanted
ascender, cf. the same feature in the Borno MS.3ImI, Figure 4), sad/dad (without
a “touth” as typical of all Maghribi hands), and flat-ending final ta’/ba’ (the

20 In Arabic, ifriqi means ‘from Ifriqiya’, the region roughly corresponding to modern day
Tunisia and western Algeria.

138

Dmitry Bondarev

ji] i^^)J Jv^oi^')-

ii • * , i..

•'■’>*> ..

■c.

IS5^ t-ici/ •>‘!’i«i. -

1' '> ^^•♦»ft»>i“^.*'-sl»,QK., ' '

' 'U yi T . '^J ' . “ 1 , -

• * r.'^” t <-r*P«vj>^|i-.t»^>i|

■•r55i i

* . • ;3 Ji HW

'■M

I'Fh

, iH* '<L7 a«!^;

oj lUjl« >

>7.J*

• t< “••' •/ ••

■ - '

li ■

t ||=

•^1

■V

<e»fc. ’-rT!

Fig. 7: Many graphic and stylistic features of the angular calligraphic script of the Qur’an text
in the Borno manuscripts are similar to corresponding features of the script of the miniature
MaghribT/AndalusT Qur’ans of the 6th/12th-7th/13th centuries, (a) Qur’an copied in Borno,
llth/17th orl2th/18th century. Konduga, private collection, MS.5 Konduga, f.l2r.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

139

Fig. 7: (b) Qur’an copied in Valencia in 596/1199-1200. London, N. D. Khalili collection of
Islamic art, QUR318, f.llla. Courtesy of The Khalili Family Trust.

feature only found in the “Valencia Qur’an” MS.Khalili.QUR318 (see Figure 1)}^
Angularity in Maghribl script copies of the Qur’anic text is not restricted to earlier
times. Qur’an copies created as late as the 10*^ AH/16* CE-11* AH/17* CE cen¬
turies in Morocco during the Sa’di dynasty show a thickness and angularity of
strokes very much comparable with the Borno hands. Importantly, the Moroc-

21 MS.Khalili.QUR318 has also been reproduced in James 1992, 95 and Blair 2006, 225.

140

Dmitry Bondarev

vJUis

Sf '-tr^ , '

"ll-.U ^

±',1 \ ^jMSb^i

^>i./)lir)^iyl^^!_lLlil_i;l,»^^^.w ^jVvk^S, ;, i.^.VS^

i=£’;jls^j^j i-ii. ^’}i ot><^A’ii. f»^LS

Fig. 8: Less angular Qur’an hands and various non-Qur’an hands of Arabic annotations in Borno
Qur’ans are very close to the MaghribT scripts of many non-Qur’an manuscripts produced from
the 9th/15th to the llth/17th centuries, (a) The Borno Qur’an MS.IYM (late llth/17th to early
12th/18th century) with Arabic to^/r written in the margins. Sura al-’insan. Note similarity
between the flexible Qur’an and tafsir hands on the one hand and a typical varieties of the
MarghribT hand in Fig.Sb. London, SQAS, Photographic and digital collection MS. 380808,

MS.31ml.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

141

'fcC.--■sZ.** 4*-*- -MiOi.,

j' V-v.* •• •- •.^. »••. «*-'••» r

AJi>l\.A^.'. .iu5

*L/ *' •

V 2'4«a. ^ ’r^ -. i. iv; i l.v.'’

wO*i’'-’ ^ ^ '■*'• ’’ " - v," •*. ■

* v < ^ V fc ‘ ***** 1 ^.. •! ‘t*

^ ’* , A " . '■' - j ®

M» '... ■ .. '

i' - ' » " -•'- j_r

^ A

V d j- ^

’*■ *” ^ ^

,> 1 -

■■:^Vu> ^ **^V' 4V.' ■■

■ >.

i » V ‘

' f >o**^^3i> ^ i.*-»

• t • . K

Fig. 8: (b) Al-Mista‘TnT, by Yunus b. Ishaq b. Beklaresh al-lsra’TlT. A treatise on simple drugs.
Attributed to the 10th/16th century. Dublind, CBL, Ar. A506, f.2v. © The Trustees of the Chester
Beatty Library, Dublin.

142

Dmitry Bondarev

can Qur’an reproduced in Stanley 1999b, 46 features final nun without a dot - a
common graphic characteristic of the Borno manuscripts.^^

The Qur’an manuscripts are largely considered a “specific palaeographic
domain” (Deroche 2006, 218) because they employ script styles different from
non-Qur’anic hands. In the case of Borno Qur’ans however, this distinction is not
always relevant because the hands of Arabic annotations are sometimes identi¬
cal to those of the main Qur’an texts (see Figures 4, 5, and 6c). Qn average, less
angular Qur’an hands and various non-Qur’an hands of Arabic annotations rep¬
resent a baseline style typical of the entire Borno writing tradition. These flex¬
ible Borno hands are very close and sometimes almost identical to the Maghribl
scripts of many non-Qur’an manuscripts produced from the 9* AH/15* CE to the
11* AH/17* CE centuries, such as CBL Ar.4440 (9* AH/15* CE century), Ar.4493
(10* AH/16* CE century), Ar.4506 (10* AH/16* CE century),^^ Ar.4507 (11*
AH/17* CE century), Ar.4509 (11* AH/17* CE century), Ar.4557 (dated 981/1573),
and Ar.4946 (9* AH/15* CE century) (Figure 8). All these manuscripts randomly
demonstrate graphemes that constitute distinctive features of the Borno hands,
such as unpointed final nun, elongated final kaf, etc.

There are not so many graphic features in the Borno hands that are not found
in varieties of the Maghribl script. The only distinctive feature attested across
all Maghribl hands but not present in the Borno manuscripts is the isolated ta’
marbuta (») shaped as inverted coma (contrasting with a circle shape in the Borno
hands). However, unlike the Maghribl hands that show considerable variation,
the Borno scribal tradition is very conservative and strikingly uniform at the level
of graphemic representation of the script. This relative homogenity of the Borno
hands challenges Blair’s (2008, 69) assumption that they derive directly from
the Maghribl script of around the 6* century. It is highly unlikely that the Borno
scribes at that time only selected one particular set of the Maghribl script which,
together with its distinctive traits, would consistently have unpointed nun, flat
fianl ta’Iba’, long final kaf and some other subtleties typical of the Borno hand
but only occasionally found in the Maghribl script. Essentially, there is no single
Maghribl mansucript which would exhibit all graphic features typical of Borno.
Qutside Borno, these “Borno type” features are dispersed geographically across
the whole Maghreb and North Africa and, chronologically, they span a period

22 Unpointed final nun is also attested in other Maghribl Qur’ans, one attributed to the IS'**
AH/W* CE century (London, N. D. Khalili collection of Islamic Art, QUR672, reproduced in James
1992, 224-5) and the other two to the 10**' AH/IB'** CE century (Berlin, Museum fiir islamische
Kunst, Inv.NrJ7163, reproduced in Deroche 2004, 94) and Dublin, CBL, Is. 1522.

23 Catalogued as IB^-century; confusingly, however, the watermark and countermark on some
folios appear 300 years later in date (ca. 1839 according to Nikolaev 1954)

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

143

from the 6* AH/ 12 * CE to the 11* AH/17* CE century. Since these “Borno type”
features cannot be narrowed down to a certain variant of the Maghribl hands, it is
impossible to trace the Borno hand back to a single Maghribl source. It is this con¬
trast between the diversity of the Maghribl graphic features and the uniform char¬
acter of the Borno hands that points to a source different from Maghribl script,
but related to the both at the prototype level. One possible script that could be
their common prototype is the early ‘Abbasid (Kufic) script from which both the
Maghribl and Borno must have been transmitted. This chain of transmission was
already suggested by Bivar (1968) but he placed Ifrlql script (survived in some
5* AH/11* CE century manuscripts from al-Qayrawan in modern day Tunisia
[Stanley 1999a, 33, Deroche 2004,49,70]) as an intermediate stage of the develop¬
ment of the Borno hand. Since the Ifrlql type does not share graphic features with
the Borno hand in the way that the Maghribl does, it is implausible to postulate
an Ifrlql link in this process of transmission. We do not know any other script type
which would be closer to the West African style than Maghribl is, and therefore
it is reasonable to consider the Borno hand to be part of the Maghribl scripts (as
suggested by Stanley 1999a and Blair 2008). The question will remain as to what
kind of Kufic/the early ‘Abbasid was their common source.

4.5 Function

The simple fact that the Borno Qur’ans are abundantly filled with Arabic and Old
Kanembu annotations in different hands signals that the manuscripts served
multiple purposes. Their layout, characterised by wide margins and generously
spaced lines, indicates that the main text - the Qur’an - was vnritten with the view
to allowing room for annotation (see Figure 6). As mentioned before, the glosses
in Old Kanembu are often written upside dovm. This probably reflects their use
in teaching, placed between teacher and the student. All these characteristics
suggest that these manuscripts had an educational function, and were applied to
the studying and teaching of the Qur’an. This is fully supported by a passage in
one of the Arabic annotations found on the last folio (recto) of MS.3ImI (Figure 9):

’Abu ‘Ubayd narrated on the authority of Ibn Mas'ud that he said, ‘Free the Qur’an and do
not mix it with anything else.’ It was narrated on the authority of Ibrahim that he disliked
[writing] commentaries on the Qur’an, and Malik said, ‘There is no harm in this [writing
commentaries] in the copies of the Qur’an used to teach the youth...’ (Al-Achtar and Bond¬
arev 2008).“

24 The quotation is taken from the book al-tahbirf\ ‘ilm al-tafsir ‘The composition on tafsir stud¬
ies’ by the famous Egyptian scholar al-Suyuti (849/1445-911/1505).

144

Dmitry Bondarev

W ./V£AjA>^‘>rc

l^ialim

<U—

«i.;JEl>^;jW5 WoA.

0x7;

Vliiia

cv.

frfQ 'r^ •<

ytf

tMf

\f)CAnrji^t^ <

. ■■

lfcir7^/«CT’A«/!^-i_

»4

S£

STs

Iffll

r> 7*'. -f

.•X/tT^T?

TTf<<

iiv,

</M

»«t

flWc

Fig. 9: Qur’an. Last chapter sura an-nas. At the end of the main text there is a four line quota¬
tion from the book al-tahbTr ff 'ilm al-tafsTr‘The composition on fo^s/r studies’ by the famous
Egyptian scholar al-SuyutT (8A9/14A5-911/1505). London, SOAS, Photographic and digital
collection MS. 380808, MS.31ml.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

145

It is remarkable how this quote visually springs out of the whole page. Although
in a script much smaller than the main Qur’an text, the lines of the passage,
which are written in a block immediately after the last verse of the Qur’an, are
amply sparse, making it stand out prominently against all other annotations
on the page. What is even more important, however, is that the quote had been
written prior to any other commentaries - note the way this textual block is sur¬
rounded by inscriptions. It means that after having finished the main Qur’an text,
the scribe indicated that the volume was intended to be used for further writing
(as happened afterwards as we can see). This is a clear evidence of preparation of
the Qur’an text for studying Qld Kanembu and Arabic tafsir.

4.6 Language

The linguistic properties of Qld Kanembu glosses vary only slightly across manu¬
scripts from widely different periods. Qne variety of the language is represented
equally in the oldest MS.2ShK and MS.3ImI (16*-17* centuries), and in 20*-cen-
tury manuscripts. The comparison of grammatical structures of Qld Kanembu
with the spoken Kanuri used during the last century of the ancient Borno Sultan¬
ate (late IS*** to early 19* centuries) as represented in the gargams and the Gazar
dialect of Kanuri (late 18* to early 19* century) as recorded by Koelle (1854a,
b) shows that major lexical and grammatical differences exist between Qld
Kanembu and the Kanuri of the Borno Sultanate. This indicates that the language
used in the glosses was not contemporaneous with Kanuri as spoken at the time
the manuscripts were created (i.e. between the 16* and 18* centuries), but rather
reflects a spoken variety of Kanembu, the language of the old Kanem Sultanate
(10*-15* centuries, see Bondarev 2006b, 2013a, b).

Due, however, to the restricted Qld Kanembu corpus and the fact that it rep¬
resents a highly specialized variety of the language used for Qur’anic interpreta¬
tion, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what form of the language is represented
in the Qur’ anic glosses. It is possible that they combine grammatical structures
inherited from different chronological stages of Qld Kanembu and Borno Kanuri,
and as such cannot be placed at a particular period. Rather the language of the
glosses is best considered a cluster of archaic features dating from the period of
Qld Borno back to the Qld Kanem period.

The Qld Kanembu glosses are written according to rather regular spelling con¬
ventions within a single manuscript. This is irrespective of the fact that in each
manuscript the glosses were written by a number of different scribes. Qrthography
nevertheless varies from manuscript to manuscript. For example, the grapheme
<th> does not occur in MS.2ShK, as it does in MS.IYM. Instead, the grapheme <s>

146

Dmitry Bondarev

is used in the corresponding lexemes: <siki> (MS.2ShK) - <tMgi> (MS.IYM) ‘there
is’, <sa> (MS.2ShK) - <tha> (MS.IYM) ‘they say’, <srakd> (MS.2ShK) - <thrago>
(MS.IYM) ‘he wants’, <satalkl> (MS.2ShK) - <thutulugi> (MS.IYM) ‘he took out’.

It is possible that the spelling systems applied to Old Kanembu by the scribes
of MS.IYM and MS.2ShK were influenced by the different Kanuri or Kanembu dia¬
lects they spoke in everyday life. This manuscript-specific orthography may indi¬
cate that the Borno Qur’ans were created in different places and not only in the
capital city Birni Gazargamu. On the other hand, some orthographic conventions
are apparently universal, such as the personal pronouns <hu> ‘I’, <ni> ‘you’, and
<ti> ‘he/she’, to mention just a few. This further corroborates the hypothesis that
Old Kanembu of Borno Qur’ans represents a kind of standard, literate form of the
language which transcends dialect.

4.7 The continuation of the archaic tradition: Tarjumo

A descendant of Old Kanembu survives in modern-day Borno in the form of a
largely unreported language known locally as “Tarjumo” (Tela 1994, Bondarev
2006b, 2013a, b). This language functions synchronically only as a language
for Islamic scholars, and it is entirely unintelligible to most speakers of modern
Kanuri. Its only use is as a language of vernacular commentary on texts written
and read in Arabic. Etymologically, the term Tarjumo derives from the Arabic verb
tarjama (‘to translate, interpret’), and the noun tarjamat (‘translation, interpreta¬
tion’). Its application to the exegetical medium of Qur’anic interpretation is met¬
onymic: the language is named according to the concept or function associated
with it.

Preliminary analysis of Tarjumo shows that its linguistic structure is much
closer to Old Kanembu than to modern Kanuri (Bondarev 2006b, 2013a, b). This
is illustrated by the following example:

Qur’anic Arabic (Qur’an 79,11):

'a’idha kunna ‘izdma nakhira
when we.were bones decayed

‘after we were decayed bones’ (interpreted in tafslr: ‘after we have returned to
decayed bones’)

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

147

Old Kanembu (MS.IYM);

us.were.made-when bone aging-PRTCP-IO it.was.made-when^^

‘after we were old bones’ (lit. ‘after we were made old bones’)

Tarjumo;

andiye tadi -ve-va shilawd dintd-bu -w \\andiye tadiv eva ||

we.SJ were-we-when bones aging-PRTCP-IO

‘after we were old bones’

(Double vertical lines (||) indicate a repeated passage).

Modern Kanuri (Luwuran Kambo 2003,7):

ngdwo shila mbas-kdta-ro wdlnyena-da-n

after bones decay-PAST.PRTCPL-IO we.return-the-at
‘after we have returned to decaying bones’

As evident from the above, Tarjumo shows a close grammatical and lexical rela¬
tion to Old Kanembu, while Modern Kanuri differs remarkably from both Old
Kanembu and Tarjumo. The items cognate in Old Kanembu and Tarjumo (but not
present in modern Kanuri) are underlined. Old Kanembu grammatical structures
are not always preserved in Tarjumo, many of them being reanalysed in accor¬
dance with modern Kanuri grammar. For example, the word-forms <tsatadiki>
‘we were made’ and <tadiki> ‘was made’, which are passive forms of the verb
<tsigi> ‘to be’ in Old Kanembu, were reinterpreted in Tarjumo as active forms of a
non-existent Old Kanembu verb *tadi with the same meaning ‘to be’.

Tarjumo mainly functions in the oral domain as a medium for interpreting
written Arabic texts like the Qur’an (with the mandatory use of an Arabic tafsir,
mainly Tafsir al-Jaldlayn by al-Suyuti and al-Mahalli), qasida’s (versified compo¬
sitions) written by local sheikhs in Arabic, or invocations (used as healing and
purifying techniques) based on Kitdb al-shifd’ of Qadi Tyad.

Like the Old Kanembu of the Old Borno manuscripts, Tarjumo also exists in
written form for educational purposes and for translation of various religious
texts in Arabic, such as Umm al-bardhin {al-‘aqida al-sughrd by al-Santisi) and
the Tawhid (doctrine of the oneness of God) section of al-Murshid al-Mu'in (‘The
helpful guide’) by Ibn ‘Ashur (Figure 10).

25 Abbreviations: 10 - indirect object, PRTCP - particple, SJ - subject marker.

148

Dmitry Bondarev

Fig. 10: The Tawhid section of at-Murshid al- Mu'in (The Helpful Guide), Maiduguri, Imam Habib
collection, MS.Tawhid/1.

In Qur’anic education, Tarjumo is introduced as a special subject when students
of the traditional advanced Qur’anic schools start studying the tafsir. The teach¬
ing method is based on integrated oral and written transmission. Starting from
the last sum’s the malam (‘teacher’) reads short passages of the Qur’an, broken
down into smaller phrases, each accompanied by a short phrase in Tarjumo. The

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

149

student writes the pronounced passage down and repeats it until it is learned by
heart. In former times, the text would have been written on a wooden slate {alio <
Ar. lawh) until the student was allowed to write on paper in a manuscript. In our
time, the text is vnritten in a notebook with non-standardized rules for spelling
the Tarjumo words - a practice different from the orthographic tradition used in
the past as represented by Borno Qur’ans.

5 Conclusions

The political and religious history of Kanem-Borno is attested in two traditions of
written literature: the monolingual manuscripts of the Borno Sultanate written in
Kanuri, and the bilingual manuscripts in Arabic and Old Kanembu.

As shown in Table 1, the two manuscript traditions are distinguished by
five parameters. The only shared features are script type and, to an extent, page
layout.

Tab. 1: Comparative characteristics of gargams and bilingual Borno manuscripts

Parameter

Gargams

Bilingual Borno manuscripts

1. Language

Monolingual: Kanuri of the Borno
period (ca. 18-19th cc.)

Bilingual: (Qur’anic) Arabic and Qld
Kanembu

2. Content

Historical information: genealogies.

Non-historical information: commentaries

on the Qur’an

3. Function

Secular: mnemonic texts based on
genealogical recitation at the court
of the ruler.

Religious: annotations used in Qur’anic
education for advanced students in Qld
Kanembu/Tarjumo and tafsTr.

4. Historical
continuity

Discontinued (with the fall of the
Syfuwa dynasty in 1846.)

Continuing (in oral and written form in
form of commentary on the Qur’an and
other religious texts in Arabic).

5. Period of
production

18'*' to 19"' centuries

16"'-17"' to 21"' centuries

6. Script

Borno type of Arabic script related to Maghribi variety

7. Layout

Gargams copy some of the arrangement of the Borno Qur’an mss, i.e., wide
margins and use of a rulingframe. But gargams have no punctuation, nor do
they use the system of text division found in the Borno Qur’ans.

150

Dmitry Bondarev

The monolingual gargams reflect the history of the former Kanem-Borno ruling
dynasty, while the bilingual Borno manuscripts reflect the development of Islam
and Qur’anic studies in Kanem-Borno. These two “histories” are not easy to sep¬
arate because of close connection of Qur’anic learning with the royal Sayfawa
court.

As mentioned in section 2, the ruling dynasty adopted Islam and engaged
itself directly with Qur’anic education from the early Kanem period. According
to the Arab historian al-Maqrizi (d. 845/1442), in the first half of the 13‘*^ century
a Kanem mai - most probably Dunama Dabalemi who ruled in 606-646/1210-
1248 - built the madrasa called Ibn Rashiq in Cairo for students from Kanem
(Lange 1977, 72, Levtzion and Hopkins 1981, 353).

If we also recall the mentioned custom, practiced by the Sayfawa dynasty, of
granting Muslim scholars charters of privilege (section 2), it will be clear that close
association between the court and the Muslim scholarly community had been a
rule for all mai’s. The mahram’s as written documents confirmed the granting of
hurma (inviolability) to an ‘alim ‘a scholar’ in return for his promise to pray for the
mai and provide him haraka (blessing). The mahram system maintained support
of ‘ulama’hy the rulers, because the rulers sought blessing and feared their curse
(Bobboy 1992, 125-126), but the system also encouraged and sustained Islamic
learning, since “the inviolability of the mallamtis [i.e., state protected scholarly
villages] ... attracted a large number of students and provided a stable basis for
the conduct of educational activities during the Sayafawa period...” (ibid, 127).

The component of the ruling power is imbedded in the history of Islamic edu¬
cation in Borno, especially in tafsir studies. The Kanuri oral tradition ascribes the
foundation of advanced tafsir studies in early Borno to mai ‘Ali Gaji b. Dunama
(Mustapha 1987) whose reign (869-902/1465-1497 [Lange 1977, 91]) is also asso¬
ciated with the establishment of the Borno capital Gazargamu in 1480. Qn his
pilgrimage to Mecca in 1484, he received the title of caliph of Borno from the
‘Abbasid caliph in Cairo with the assistance of the famous Muslim scholar and
Qur’an commentator Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (849/1445-911/1505) (Levtzion 2000,
81). Al-Suyuti’s commentary on the Qur’an (co-authored with his teacher Jalal
al-Din al-Mahalli) has till now been the most widely read and best known exegeti-
cal work in Borno and West Africa in general, and has also been used as a primary
study companion in learning Qld Kanembu in its Tarjumo form. As we have seen
in section 4.5, the organisation of wide-margin layout for the Borno Qur’ans
alludes to other famous al-Suyuti’s work. Thus, the name of the renowned Egyp¬
tian exegete and the Borno ruler who established the Qld Borno capital and is
portrayed as the propagator of advanced Islamic learning are tightly linked in
local historical memory concerning Qld Kanembu/Tarjumo and tafsir studies.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

151

The manuscripts examined in the present article - the gargams of the mat’s
of Kanem-Borno and the Qur’ans of Tarjumo and tafsir education - all originated
in this particular political, religious and educational symbiosis. It is this that
may account for their similarities of layout: the scribes who wrote the gargams
could have modelled their wide-margin texts on the Qur’an manuscripts, so that
visually the former referred to the latter. This way, in a very concise form as the
gargams were, the scribes would secure the delivery of a multilayered message
that could simultaneously hint at the long succession of the rulers, their political
and religious power and not the least at tight bonds between Muslim scholars and
the Sayfawa dynasty seen as propagators and protectors of Islamic education.

Considering their close historical connection to the early Borno Qur’ans pro¬
duced in the AH/17* CE century or earlier, it should not be ruled out that the
gargams came into written existence much earlier than is evident from Palmer’s
dating (i.e. 1209/1794, cf. Palmer 1936,107). This assumption is, however, unlikely
to be proved until original copies of gargams are found.

References

Al-Achtar, Ahmad and Dmitry Bondarev (2008), “Arabic tafsTr\n the Borno Qur’anic manuscripts
(northeast Nigeria)”. Paper presented at the Centre of Islamic Studies, SOAS.

Amselle, Jean-Loup and Emmanuelle Sibeud (eds.) (1998), Maurice Delafosse. Entre

orientalisme et ethnographie: I’itineraire d’un africaniste (1870-1926), Paris, Maisonneuve
8i Larose.

Barth, Heinrich (1862-1866), Sammtung und Bearbeitung Central-Afrikanischer Vokabularien.

3 vols. Gotha: Justus Perthes.

Bivar, Adrian David H. (1960), “A dated Kuran from Bornu”, in: Nigeria Magazine, 65,199-205.

Bivar, Adrian David H. (1968), “The Arabic calligraphy of West Africa”, \n: African Language
Review?, 3-15, l-VIII.

Bivar, A.D.H. (2007), “The scribal tradition of the Borno Qur’ans, the oldest Arabic manuscripts
reported from Nigeria”. Paper presented at the 3rd AHRC/SOAS Workshop: “Early
Nigerian Qur’anic Manuscripts: an interdisciplinary study of Kanuri glosses and Arabic
commentaries”, London, 30 November, 2007.

Blair, Sheila S. (2006), islamic calligraphy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Blair, Sheila S. (2008), “Arabic calligraphy in West Africa”, in: jeppie, Shamil and Souleymane
Bachir Diagne (eds.). The meanings of Timbuktu, Cape Town/ Dakar: HSRC/CQDESRIA, 59-75.

Bobboyi, Hamidu (1992), The ’^ulamd’ of Borno: a Study of the Relations Between Scholars and
State under the Sayfuwa, 1470-1808, Ph.D. diss. Evanston: Northwestern University.

Bobboyi, Hamidu (1993), “Relations of the Borno ‘^ulamd with the Sayfawa rulers: the role of the
mahrams”’, in: Sudanic Africa, 4, 175-20A.

Bobboyi, Hamidu (2008), “Ajami literature and the study of the Sokoto Caliphate”, in: Jeppie,
Shamil and Souleymane Bachir Diagne (eds.). The meanings of Timbuktu. Cape Town/
Dakar: HSRC/CQDESRIA, 123-134.

152

Dmitry Bondarev

Bondarev, Dmitry (2005a), “Archaic Kanembu in the Borno Qur’anic manuscripts: palaeographic
identification and problems of phonological and morphological reconstruction”, in: Borno
Museum Society Newsletter 63/6^: 5-27.

Bondarev, Dmitry (2005b), “In search of the Saharan inflectional verbal paradigms in Old
Kanembu”, \n:Afrika und Ubersee: In Memoriam Johannes Lukas, 88, 35-51.

Bondarev, Dmitry (2006a), “The language of glosses in the Bornu Quranic manuscripts”, in:
SOAS Bulletin, 69,1,113-lAO.

Bondarev, Dmitry (2006b), “An archaic form of Kanuri/Kanembu: a translation tool for Qur’anic
studies”, in: Journal of Qur’anic Studies 8,1:142-153.

Bondarev, Dmitry (2007), Early Nigerian Qur’anic Manuscripts: Palaeography http://www.soas.
ac.uk/africa/research/kanuri/subjectareas/palaeography/ (seen 20.08.2014)

Bondarev, Dmitry (2008), “Complexclauses in Qld Kanembu/LG”, in: Cyffer, Norbert and Georg
Ziegelmeyer (eds.). Aspects ofco- and subordination: Case studies from African, Slavonic,
and Turkic languages. Kbln: Rudiger Kbppe Verlag, 213-250.

Bondarev, Dmitry (2013a), “Qur’anic Exegesis in Qld Kanembu: Linguistic Precision for Better
Interpretation”, in: Tamari, Tal and Dmitry Bondarev (eds.), Qur’anic Exegesis in African
Languages. Special Issue of the Journal of Qur’anic Studies. 15,3, 56-83.

Bondarev, Dmitry (2013b), “Language change induced by written codes: a case of Qld Kanembu
and Kanuri dialects”, in: Wagner. Esther-Miriam Wagner, Ben Quthwaite and Bettina
Beinhoff (eds.). Scribes as agents of language change. Studies in language change.
Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 291-323.

Bondarev, Dmitry (2014), “Qld Kanembu and Kanuri in Arabic script: phonology through the
graphic system”, in: Mumin, Meikaland Kees Versteegh (eds.). The Arabic Script in Africa:
Studies in the Use of a Writing System. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 107-142.

Bondarev, Dmitry (forthcoming), “TafsTr sources in four annotated Qur’anic manuscripts from
ancient Borno”, in: Zulfikar Hirji (ed.) Approaches to the Qur’an in Sub-Saharan Africa,
Qxford/London: QUPSi IIS.

Boogert, Nico van den (2000), “Medieval Berber orthography”, in: Etudes berberes etchamito-
semitique. Melanges offerts a Karl-G. Prasse [M.S. - Ussun amaziy, 15], Chaker, Salem
(ed.), 357-377. Paris - Louvain: Peeters.

Brenner, Louis (1973), Theshehus ofKukawa: a history of the al-Kanemi dynasty of Bornu,
Qxford: Clarendon Press.

Briquet, Charles-MoTs (1907), Les filigranes. Dictionnaire historique des marques du papier, des
leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600, avec39 figures dans le texte etl6112 facsimiles
de filigranes, Vol. 2, Geneve/Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils.

Brocket!, Adrian (1987), “Aspects of the physical transmission of the Qur’an in 19th-century
Sudan: script, decoration, bindingand paper”, in: Manuscripts of the Middle East 2,

45-67.

Carboni, Stefano (2007), “Moments of vision: Venice and the Islamic world, 828-1797”, in
Carboni, Stefano (ed.) Venice and the islamic World 828-1797, New York: Metropolitan
Museum of Art.

Denham, Dixon and Hugh Clapperton (1826), Narrative of travels and discoveries in northern
and central Africa, in the years 1822,1823, and 1824. London: John Murray.

Deroche, Francois (1985), Les manuscripts du Coran. Du Maghreb a I’insulinde, Paris:
Bibliotheque nationale de France.

Deroche, Francois (2004), Le livre manuscritarabe: prelude a une histoire, Paris: Bibliotheque
nationale de France.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

153

Deroche, Francois [et.al] (2006), Islamic Codicology: an Introduction to the Study of

Manuscripts in Arabic Script-, translated by Deke Dusinberre and David Radzinowicz;
edited by Muhammad Isa Waley, London: Al-Furqan Islamic Fleritage Foundation.

Dobronravin, Nikolay (1999), Arabograficheskaya pis’mennaya traditsiya ZapadnoyAfriki
[Arabic-script written tradition of West Africa], St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University.

Dobronravin, Nikolay (200A), “Flausa Ajami literature and script: colonial innovations and
post-colonial myths in Northern Nigeria”, in: Sudanic Africa, 15, 85-110.

DIAMM (2008) The Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music: Restoration Process. http://diamm.
cch.kcl.ac.uk/restoration/process.html (seen 26.6.2008)

Eineder, Georg (1960), The ancient paper-mills of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire and their
watermarks, Flilversum, Holland: Paper Publications Society.

Ethnologue (2014): Kanembu. http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=kbl
(seen 12.8.2014)

Gacek, Adam (2007), “Taxonomy of scribal errors and corrections in Arabic manuscripts”, in:
Pfeiffer, Judith and Manfred Kropp (eds.). Theoretical approaches to the transmission
and edition of Oriental manuscripts. Proceedings of a symposium held in Istanbul March
28-30, 2001, Wurzburg: Ergon Verlag, 217-235, 313-319 (illus.).

Gutelius, David (2000), “Newly discovered 10 th/ 16 th c. Ajami manuscript in Niger and Kel
Tamasheq history”, in: Saharan Studies Newsletter, 8,1-2, 6.

Harrison, Christopher (1988), France and Islam in West Africa, 1860-1960, Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.

Houdas, Octave (1886), “Essai sur I’ecriture maghrebine”, in: Nouveauxmelanges orientaux,
Paris: E. Leroux, 85-115.

Humbert, Genevieve (1998), “Papiers non filigranes utilises au Proche-Orient jusqu’en 1450:
Essai de typologie”, in: JournalAsiatique 286,1,1-54.

Hun wick, John (1997), “The Arabic literary tradition of Nigeria”, in: Research in African
Literatures, 28, 3, 210-223.

Hunwick, John 0. and Alida Jay Boye (2008), The hidden treasures of Timbuktu. Historic city of
Islamic Africa, London: Thames 8i Hudson.

Hunwick, John and R. S. O’Fahey (eds.) (1995), Arabic literature of Africa, Vol. 2: The writings of
Central Sudanic Africa, Leiden: Brill.

James, David (1980), Qur’ans and bindings. From the Chester Beatty library: a facsimile
exhibition, London: World of Islam Festival Trust.

James, David (1992), The master scribes: Qur’ans of the 10th to 14th centuries AD. The Nasser
D. Khaim collection of Islamic Art, London/New York: Nour Foundation in association with
Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press,

Koelle, Sigismund Wilhelm (1854a), Grammar of the Bornu orKanuri language, London: Church
Missionary House.

Koelle, Sigismund Wilhelm (1854b), African native literature: or, proverbs, tales, fables, &

historical fragments in the Kanuri or Bornu language: to which are added a translation of
the above and a Kanuri-English vocabulary, London: Church Missionary Society.

Lange, Dierk (1977), Chronologie et histoire d’un royaume africain (de la fin du Xe siecle jusqu’a
1808), Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Lange, Dirk (1987), A Sudanic chronicle: the Borno expeditions of Idris Alauma (1564-1576),
Stuttgart: Steiner.

154

Dmitry Bondarev

Lepsius, Richard (1855), Das allgemeine tinguistische Alphabet: Grundsatze der Ubertragung
fremder Schriftsysteme and bisher noch ungeschriebener Sprachen in europdische
Buchstaben, Berlin: Verlag von Wilhelm Hertz.

Levtzion, Nehemia (2000), “Islam in the Bilad al-Sudan to 1800”, in: Levtzion, Nehemia and
Randal L. Pouwels (eds.). The History of Islam in West Africa, Oxford: James Currey Ltd,
63-91.

Levtzion, Nehemia and J. F. P. Hopkins (1981), Corpus of early Arabic sources for West African
history, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luwuran Kambo (2003) ,Juzu amma. Tarjumo talam Kanuribe [The Holy Qur’an. Juz30. A Kanuri
translation], Maiduguri: Karta Islambe Imam Malikbe.

Martin, B. G. (1969), “Kanem, Borno and the Fezzan: notes on the political history of a trade
route”, in: The Journal of African History, 10,1,15-27.

Martin, B. G. (1972), “Mai Idris of Bornu and the Ottoman Turks, 1576-78”, in: International
Journal of Middle East Studies, 3, A, A70-A90.

Moraes Farias, Paulo Fernando de (2001), Arabic medieval inscriptions from the Republic of
Mali: epigraphy, chronicles and Songhay-Tuareg history, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mustapha, Abubakar (1987), The Contribution ofSayfawa ‘Ulama’ to the Study of Islam:
c. 1086-1846 AD, The unpublished PhD thesis. Kano: Bayero University.

Nur Alkali, Mohammad (1987), “On the study of the history of Kanuri”, \n: Annals of Borno, A,
1 - 6 .

Nikolaev, Vsevolod (195A), Watermarks of the mediaeval Ottoman documents in Bulgarian
libraries, Vo[. 1, Sofia: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences.

Nobili, Mauro (2011), “Arabic scripts in West African manuscripts: a tentative classification from
the de Gironcourt collections”, in: Islamic Africa, 2, 1,105-133.

Palmer, Richmond H. (1913), “The Bornu Girgam”, in: Journal of the African Society, 13, 71-83.

Palmer, Richmond H. (1928), Sudanese Memoir, Vols l-lll. Lagos: The Government Printer.

Palmer, Richmond H. (1936), The Bornu Sahara and Sudan, London: John Murray.

Philips, John Edward (200A), “Hausa in the twentieth century: an overview”, in: Sudanic Africa:
a journal of historical sources, 15, 55-8A.

Reichmuth, Stefan (2000), “Islamic Education and Scholarship in Sub-Saharan Africa”, in:
Levtzion, Nehemia and Randal L. Pouwels (eds.). The History of Islam in West Africa,
Oxford: James Currey Ltd, A19-AA0.

Robinson, David (1997), “Muslim societies in a secular space”, in Robinson, David and

Jean-Louis Triaud (eds.), Le temps des marabouts: itineraires etstrategies islamiques en
Afrique Occidentale Frangaise v.1880-1960. Paris: Karthala, 559-575.

Stanley, Tim (1999a), “The Qur’anic script of Western Sudan. Maghribi or Ifriqi?”, in: Bayani,
Manijeh, Anna Contadini and Tim Stanley, The decorated word: Qur'ans of the 17th to
19th centuries. The Nasser D. Khalili collection of Islamic Art. London; New York: Nour
Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 32-3A.

Stanley, Tim (1999b), “North Africa. The maintenance of a tradition”, in: Bayani, Manijeh, Anna
Contadini and Tim Stanley, The decorated word: Qur’ans of the 17th to 19th centuries.

The Nasser D. Khalili collection of Islamic Art. London/New York: Nour Foundation in
association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, A2-5A.

Stewart, Charles C. (1997), “Colonial justice and the spread of Islam in the early twentieth
century”, in: Robinson, David and Jean-Louis Triaud (eds.), Le temps des marabouts:
itineraires et strategies islamiques en Afrique Qccidentate Frangaise v.1880-1960, Paris:
Karthala, 53-66.

Multiglossia in West African Manuscripts: The Case of Borno, Nigeria

155

Tela, Isa Umara (1994), The importance ofTarjumo to the development of new terms in Kanuri,
MA (unpublished) dissertation. University of Maiduguri.

Yahaya, Ibrahim Yaro (1988), Hausa a Rubuce: Tarihin Rubuce Rubuce Cikin Hausa [Written

Hausa: a history of writing in Hausa], Zaria: Kamfanin Buga Littattafai Na Nigeria Ta Arewa.

Dominik Wujastyk

Indian Manuscripts

1 Introduction

India as a modern nation-state covers the greater part of the South Asian penin¬
sula, from the Himalayas in the north to the tip of Cape Comorin, about 3000 km
to the south. However, as a cultural-historical sphere, other modern states such
as Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and even to some extent Burma,
Thailand and Indonesia, share aspects of their manuscript heritage with modern
India. Countries such as Afghanistan and even western China, especially Xinji¬
ang Province, have been important sites of “Indian” manuscript discovery, and
the Tibetan manuscript tradition was strongly influenced by Indian Buddhist
models. This is because these surrounding geographical areas participated in
trade and cultural exchange with South Asia from a very early period, and espe¬
cially because of the missionary activities of Buddhist monks. What, then, really
defines an “Indian manuscript”?

For most specialists, this expression conjures up the idea of a hand-written
document inscribed on paper or palm leaf, in Devanagari or one of the other
alphabets of South or Central Asia, and typically in the Sanskrit, Tamil or Persian
language. But one has to bear in mind that the boundaries of definition are fluid,
and that a manuscript from China, written on birch-bark in the Kharosthi script
of Gandhara and the Middle-Iranian language called Khotanese, may also be
considered, in many respects, an Indian manuscript, for example if it contains a
translation of a Sanskrit treatise on Buddhism or ayurveda, or if it was produced
in a Buddhist monastery that still had living links with India.

It is also important to remember that Islamic culture began to influence India
over a thousand years ago, and has left a huge legacy of manuscripts and paint¬
ings, especially from the courtly centres of the Sultans and Mughals. Islamic
Indian manuscripts are often written in the (Middle) Persian language and script,
but there are also many surviving manuscripts in Arabic and Urdu, written in
variant forms of the Perso-Arabic alphabet. The present chapter will focus mainly
on Sanskrit and Prakrit manuscripts, which form by far the greatest bulk of sur¬
viving manuscript materials in South Asia, and which represent the continuous
cultural heritage of India dating back to the second millennium BCE.

How many Indian manuscripts are there? The National Mission for Manu¬
scripts in New Delhi works with a conservative figure of seven million manu-

160

Dominik Wujastyk

scripts, and its database is approaching two million records^ The late Prof.
David Pingree, basing his count on a lifetime of academic engagement with
Indian manuscripts, estimated that there were thirty million manuscripts, if
one counted both those in public and government libraries, and those in private
collections.^ For anyone coming to Indian studies from another field, these gar¬
gantuan figures are scarcely credible. But after some acquaintance with the
subject, and visits to manuscript libraries in India, it becomes clear that these
very large figures are wholly justified. The Jaina manuscript library at Koba in
Gujarat, which only started publishing its catalogues in 2003, has an estimated
250,000 manuscripts. The Sarasvati Bhavan Library in Benares has in excess of
100,000 manuscripts. There are 85,000 in various repositories in Delhi. There are
about 50,000 manuscripts in the Sarasvati Mahal library in Thanjavur in the far
South. Such examples are easily multiplied across the whole subcontinent. And
these are only the public libraries with published catalogues. A one-year pilot
field-survey by the National Mission for Manuscripts in Delhi, during 2004-2005,
documented 650,000 manuscripts distributed across 35,000 repositories in the
states of Orissa, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, and field participants in that project
report that they only scratched the surface.^ The former maharajas often col¬
lected huge private manuscript libraries, only some of which are publicly avail¬
able today. And it is very common for a modest Brahman family today, living away
from urban centres, to have a cupboard containing two or three thousand manu¬
scripts, handed down from a learned grandfather, perhaps. A reader unfamiliar
with the Indian case, and thinking such numbers inconceivable, might assume
that these are fragments or single leaves, a kind of trans-continental Geniza.
That is not the case. These millions of Indian manuscripts are mostly full literary
works, typically consisting of scores or hundreds of closely-written folios, most
often in Sanskrit, and containing works of classical learning on logic, theology,
philosophy, medicine, grammar, law, mathematics, yoga, tantra, alchemy, reli¬
gion, poetry, drama, epic, and a host of other themes. Throughout history, Indian
society has vigorously privileged higher learning, and the record of over two and
a half millennia of artistic and intellectual work has been transmitted in manu¬
script form to the 20* century.'*

1 <http://www.namami.org/manuscriptdatabase.htm>, consuited 18 August 2011.

2 David Pingree, personai communication in the 1990s.

3 <http://www.namami.org/nationalsurvey.htm>, consulted August 2011. Field-survey remark
from personal communication at NAMAMl (National Mission for Manuscripts), September 2011.

4 Filliozat 2000 insightfully describes the intellectual and social world of traditional Indian
learning. See also Pollock 2007, Wujastyk 2007 and Minkowski 2010 on the cultural history of
early Sanskrit manuscript libraries.

Indian Manuscripts

161

In spite of the great time-depth of Indian culture, and the large numbers
of surviving manuscripts, the graph of surviving manuscript numbers against
time peaks in the early 19* century. There are numerically more Indian manu¬
scripts surviving from the 1820s and 1830s than from any other period of history.
There are a number of reasons for this. First, the smaller numbers before the 19*
century can be explained by the environmental conditions in most of South Asia,
that are hostile to birch bark, paper and palm leaf. The monsoon climate, and
the work of insects, mould, and rodents, have destroyed millions of early manu¬
scripts. This is why some of the very oldest manuscripts in Sanskrit have been
discovered not in India, but in the dry, desert conditions of Central Asia, in caves,
stupas or buried libraries on the Silk Route.^ These truly ancient manuscripts
are of immense historical importance, especially for the study of Buddhism. But
numerically they are a tiny fraction of the surviving legacy. Another reason for the
19th-century peak is the demise of the traditional profession of manuscript scribe,
in the face of the rise of printing in the 19* century. First lithography, and later
moveable-type technologies were applied to the reproduction of Sanskrit works
on a large scale, especially by publishers in Bombay and Calcutta. Some scribes
were employed to write lithographic prints, but many migrated into secretarial
and administrative posts within the government, a migration that had already
begun in Mughal times.®

An Indian manuscript written on hand-made Indian paper has a typical
physical lifetime of two to three centuries, after which it becomes increas¬
ingly fragile and illegible, and a new copy must be created.^ Of course, much
depends on handling and use. If carefully preserved, and perhaps revered rather
than read, paper manuscripts may survive longer, but paper manuscripts in
South Asia are rare from before 1500. Palm leaf manuscripts are more robust,
and can last a millennium or more if treated well. For example, the Wellcome
Astasahasrikaprainaparamita (“The Perfection of Wisdom in 8000 verses”)
is datable to about 1075 CE, and is still in almost pristine condition.® Palm leaf
manuscripts tend to wear around the edges. Scribes knew this and often left
large margins, so even after hundreds of years, the text area of the manuscript
remained intact. But when material costs obliged them to write close to the edges

5 Salomon 2003 describes such a collection acquired by the British Library in 1994, and other
recent finds, mostly dating from the early 2”‘* century CE.

6 See O’Hanlon / Minkowski 2008 for an exploration of the social history of this change.

7 Losty 1982 makes important remarks about the earliest history of paper manufacture in Nepal,
that predated the importation of paper technology from China.

8 Wellcome MS Indie epsilon 1, at the Wellcome Library, London (Wujastyk 1985,1998); Allinger
2012 ).

162

Dominik Wujastyk

of the palm leaf, then splitting and erosion of the leaf could lead to loss of text.
Thus, the Wellcome copy of the Nisvdsatattvasamhitd (“The Tantra of Sighs”),
written on paper in Nepal in 1912, preserves letters from the edges of the 9**'-cen-
tury palm leaf exemplar in Kathmandu that have been broken and lost since 1912,
thus giving the London apograph independent text-historical value.® Birch bark
was the most fragile writing support used widely in early India, being associated
especially vdth Kashmir. Surviving birch bark manuscripts flake and split when
handled, and present almost insurmountable problems for the conservator, with
encapsulation often being the only recourse.

While it may seem strange that our knowledge of ancient literature should
depend on recent manuscripts, this is often the case also for Greek and Latin
learning. For example, the oldest complete manuscript copy of Euclid’s Elements,
composed in ca. 300 BCE, is dated 888 CE. The Elements, perhaps the most impor¬
tant mathematical work ever written, was transmitted through copy after copy for
over a thousand years before we have any physical evidence for the complete text.
In a similar way, Indian literature was carefully copied and recopied for centuries,
until the 19* century. The great social and technological changes that have taken
place since then have meant the end of manuscript copying in India on a grand
scale. Instead, the future survival of this Indian literary and intellectual heritage
today depends on the discovery, conservation, preservation and reproduction by
digital means of the last generation of Indian manuscripts.

A back-of-an-envelope calculation based on estimated figures and attrition
rates suggest that several hundred Sanskrit manuscripts are being destroyed
or becoming illegible every week. It is inevitable that some of these losses will
include unique, unknown, or otherwise important works. Scholars professionally
involved in Indian manuscript studies are universally afflicted with anxiety about
this critical state of affairs. Only the Indian government has the resources and
authority to make serious headway in preserving the Indian manuscript heritage,
and the establishment of the National Mission for Manuscripts in 2003 was a ray
of hope.*

9 Wellcome MS Indie delta 41 (Wujastyk 1985, 1998, v.l, 151-2). Personal communication from
Prof. Andre Padoux; cf. Sanderson 2001, 5, note 7. The 9^-century exemplar is MS NAK 1-277 in
the National Archives of Nepal, Kathmandu.

10 <http://www.namami.org>, viewed August 2011.

Indian Manuscripts

163

2 Writing

The oldest physical writing in India survives as rock inscriptions. The most
famous and earliest inscriptions, or epigraphs, are those of King Asoka (crowned
ca. 264 BCE), who wrote edicts to his subjects in a personal and confessional style
that communicates strongly across the millennia.^^ Although writing was prob¬
ably known to exist outside India before Asoka, it has been compellingly argued
that Asoka created the first alphabetical writing specific to South Asia, in order to
promulgate his edicts.^^ He was influenced by Greek and Kharosthi models, but
created an entirely new script for the language of his edicts, which was Prakrit, a
common speech closely related to Sanskrit.This script was later called Brahmi,
and was the ancestor of most later writing systems in India, with the exception of
the Perso-Arabic family.

We do not know exactly when manuscripts began to be written in India.
The oral tradition of recitation and memorisation was extraordinarily strong in
early Indian culture, and has continued into modern times. It is still possible to
meet panditas (Brahman scholars) who know seemingly impossible volumes of
scholarly Sanskrit literature by heart, and memorisation has always been thought
of as essential to true learning in India. Yet, in spite of the strong privileging of
memorisation through all periods of Indian history, it is clear that manuscripts
were vnritten and copied in increasingly large numbers, probably from the last
few centuries BCE.

The earliest scripts are the Kharosthi and Brahmi syllabaries. The former
was normally written from right-to-left, and the script appears to be an Indian
development from Aramaic models. It was used for the earliest surviving Indian
manuscripts, the Buddhist scrolls now at the British Library. However, Kharosthi
gradually died out, and the last use of the script was in writings from remote
towns on the Silk Route in about the 7* century CE. Brahmi is first knovm to us
from the Asokan inscriptions, and was continuously adapted and modified over
two millennia, forming the basis of all the alphabets of Indian origin in South
Asia today. Script divergence began early, and variants of Brahmi that may have
been mutually illegible were already in existence by at least the 4* century CE, by
which time various lists of scripts, some of up to sixty-four names, had appeared
in Buddhist and Jaina sources.^''

11 Thapar 1997 is a standard introduction to Asokan studies.

12 Falk 1993.

13 On the early history of writing in India, see also Salomon 1995 and Salomon 1998.

14 Salomon 1998, 8-9.

164

Dominik Wujastyk

Early Indian scripts and their derivatives all assume that a single character
or “letter” is a consonant vdth a vorvel. The unmarked vorvel is “a.” Other vorvels
are written as diacritical marks. These scripts are, therefore, syllabaries rather
than alphabets. In this respect, the conception of the script’s minimal units as
syllables is in tune with the sophisticated early literature on phonetics from the
vedic tradition, in which it was understood that a consonant cannot, in fact, be
pronounced without a vowel.

The scripts derived from Brahmi have approximately fifty syllables that are
conventionally ordered in accordance with a grid of phonetic realities, i.e., voice¬
less consonants before voiced, unaspirated before aspirated, in the sequence of
consonantal stop position from back-to-front of the mouth cavity: velar, palatal,
retroflex, dental, labial.^*’ No distinction of upper- or lower-case is observed, and
syllables are pronounced the same in all contexts, making correct reading aloud
relatively easy once the glyphs are learned. There are two principal challenges in
beginning reading and comprehension. First, two or more consonants without
an intervening vowel combine graphically into a new conjunct form that is not
always visually related to the original consonants. These combinations raise the
number of commonly-used glyphs to above 350. Secondly, scribes do not rou¬
tinely mark all word-breaks with spaces. To read out loud vdth comprehension,
one needs to know the lexicon without the help of visual cues. For this reason,
some manuscripts have small vertical tick-marks above the lines, marking word-
division.

The earliest scripts known from manuscript writing are related, as one
would expect, to the earlier surviving specimens of epigraphical script. By about
700 CE, the Gupta script known from north Indian inscriptions evolved into a
script called Siddhamatrka, which continued to be in use until about 1200. While
the Gupta script is almost unknown in manuscripts,^^ Siddhamatrka is found in
early palm leaf manuscripts from Nepal and Bengal. It is a beautiful, angular cal¬
ligraphic script. Apart from its inherent beauty, it is important as the ancestor of
Devanagari, the script used for the bulk of north Indian manuscripts from the last
thousand years, and also the script used for the modern Hindi and Marathi lan¬
guages. Siddhamatrka is also the ancestor of the Tibetan script, while in north-

15 Allen 1953, 14 for a discussion of vowel “potestas” amongst the Sanskrit phoneticians (the
actual sound of a phonic blast, as opposed to the name, “nomen,” or glyph, “figura,” of a phonic
unit).

16 Gandharan arapacana syllabary, found in Buddhist documents in the Kharosthi script, is not
arranged on phonetic principles. See Salomon 1990.

17 Several early Nepalese manuscripts were said to be in Gupta writing by Sastri 1905,1915, but
his nomenclature is uncertain.

Indian Manuscripts

165

east India, it evolved into the modern scripts of that region, Bengali, Assamese,
Oriya and Maithili.

In north-wrest India, the Sarada script of Kashmir, itself emerging from the
Gupta script, evolved in to Lahnda of the wrestern Panjab region by the 10*
century, and then by the 16* century into the Gurmukhi script mostly associated
with the Sikh communities of the Panjab.

In South India, yet different ramifications of Brahmi developed, marked by
increasingly cursive and circular strokes that contrasted with the angularity of
the northern scripts. This family is today represented by the Telugu, Kannada,
Tamil, Malayalam, and Sinhala scripts. A special adaptation of the Tamil script
for writing Sanskrit is known as the Grantha script.

As can readily be seen from this thumbnail sketch, the story of script in India
is complex. Scribes would normally be versed in their local script, and so Sanskrit
was normally written down in that script too. Therefore, manuscripts of the same
Sanskrit work are often to be found written in three, four, or more quite differ¬
ent scripts, according to their locations. The localness of writing traditions also
influenced textual transmission. Many texts have recensions that are defined by
the script-groups in which the manuscripts have been transmitted. For example,
the famous play Sakuntald, by India’s greatest pre-modern playwright, Kalidasa
(fl. ca. 14* century), is known in different recensions according to the Sarada,
Devanagari or Bengali script-groupings of the surviving manuscripts, the last
group having extra prose and verse passages that emphasise the erotic content
of the drama.* Manuscripts in the Sarada script, normally from Kashmir, where
Brahman panditas were famously learned and conservative, often preserve early
textual recensions, and are important for textual reconstruction.

The student of Indian manuscripts must ideally be able to read several of
the most important scripts, which would include Devanagari, Sarada, Malayalam
and Bengali, and be prepared to learn new scripts as necessary.

Manuscripts written by Jaina or Buddhist scribes often display beautiful cal¬
ligraphy, decoration and sometimes illustration. Other scribes most often wrote
in a workmanlike but unadorned fashion. The vast majority of Indian manu¬
scripts are not works of art, for all that they may contain beautiful and important
literary texts.

18 lohnson 2001, xxx-xxxi.

166

Dominik Wujastyk

3 Material support

While wood, cloth, copper and other writing supports were sometimes used, the
principle writing supports in India have been birch bark, palm leaf and paper.
Papyrus and parchment were unknovm, the latter due to the vddely-shared
Brahman religious concepts of vegetarianism and harmlessness to living crea¬
tures (Skt. ahimsd).

Broadly speaking, in the north and west of the subcontinent, early manu¬
scripts were written on scrolls made of the bark of the birchtree, flattened, glued
into sheets and cut into scrolls or sheets. Kashmir was a noted source of the man¬
ufacture of this material, which was also exported to Central Asia and south to
the Panjab. Birch bark was still being used for manuscript production as late as
the 17* century. Writing on the smooth, flat surface of birch bark was done with
ink and a stylus, and the horizontal and vertical strokes could be emphasised cal¬
ligraphically. This technique carried over to palm leaf and later to paper, after its
widespread introduction in the early second millennium CE. The most common
script used on birch bark manuscripts is Sarada.

The leaves of two species of palm were used as writing supports in India,
Corypha umbraculifera, the Talipot Palm native to southern India and Sri Lanka,
and Bomssus flabellifer, the Toddy Palm, native to South and South East Asia.^®
Leaves were selected for size and quality, and then boiled in water and dried,
sometimes in warm sand. The surfaces of the leaves were then polished with
pumice, and cut to regular, long, narrow sizes. A hole was sometimes punched
in the centre of the leaf so that a stack could be strung together to keep them
in order. Some older, wider palm leaf manuscripts from Bengal and Nepal were
written using ink and a calligraphic stylus, as with birch bark. But the most
common scribal practice, especially on the east of India from Bengal to Tamil
Nadu in the south, was to inscribe the text on the leaf using a pointed stylus. The
manuscript would be delivered to its owner in this form. In order to read the text,
it would have to be wiped with a cloth soaked in oil and lampblack, that would fill
the incised letters with dark colour and render the manuscript legible.

Paper-making was invented in China at the end of the 1®* century CE,
although there are some earlier precursors. Slowly, knowledge of paper-making
spread over a period of centuries along the Silk Route through Samarkand and
to Baghdad, reaching Muslim Spain and Sicily by the 10* century. It is unclear
whether knowledge of paper-making reached India from China through Central
Asia, Tibet and Nepal, or through Islamic traders in the Indian Ocean, and later

19 Katre 1941, 6.

Indian Manuscripts

167

the Muslim invaders who entered India from the 13* century onwards. It is notable
that several of the later centres of paper-making are Islamic-founded cities such
as Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Faizabad and Aurangabad. Perhaps the knowledge
arrived from more than one source. Paper began to supplant palm leaf as the most
abundant writing support from about the 12* century, with some of the earliest
paper manuscripts being found in Jaina libraries in Gujarat and Rajasthan.

4 Manuscript libraries

From at least the 4* century BCE, mendicant groups including Buddhists, Jains
and Ajivikas, whose vows included a peripatetic lifestyle, were permitted to stay
in one place for the three months of the rainy season.^” These monsoon sojourns
evolved over the centuries into monastic institutions that included educational
functions. New monastic centres of learning that became particularly famous
included Nalanda (Bihar, from ca. 4* century-1200), Valabhi, Jagaddala (Bengal,
ca. 1100-1200), Odantapuri (Bihar, from ca. 700), and Somapura (Rajshahi,
Bangladesh, ca. 8*-12* century).Many of these institutions developed librar¬
ies. From the detailed descriptive accounts of the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang
(602-664), it has been estimated that there were at least 212,130 ordained monks
involved in scholarship and education in the middle of the 7* century. The figures
for Jaina monks and institutions of the period are not so well known, but the
Jainas too developed a large network of temple libraries for the use of peripatetic
monks, and groups of Jaina monks were also present at monasteries like Nalanda
that are usually thought of as Buddhist.Many of the Buddhist monastic libraries
were destroyed by the Islamic incursions of Muhammad Bakhtiar Khilji (d. 1205),
and others, and medieval Buddhist manuscripts from India are very rare. Jaina
libraries seem to have fared slightly better, although the many libraries estab¬
lished by the 12*-century kings Kumarapala and Vastupala in Patan are thought to
have been destroyed during the Muslim conquests. Yet there are many great Jaina
library collections that have survived to the present day.^^ These include the Koba
Tirth collection mentioned above, as well as the L. D. Institute in Ahmedabad,
the Jnana Bhandara in Jaisalmere, the Hemacandra Jnana Bhandara in Patan and
many others.^'' Libraries were often kept in semi-secret chambers or cellars, with

20 Scharfe 2002, ch. 9; “From monasteries to universities.”

21 Altekar 1944, ch. 5, Mookerji 1947, passim, Bose 1923.

22 Cort 1995, 33-44.

23 Johnson 1999.

24 Ibid. See also Kasliwal 1967.

168

Dominik Wujastyk

access strictly limited to monks. The broad cultural and philosophical interests of
Jaina scholars over the ages have meant that Jaina scribes also copied non-Jaina
wrorks in relative abundance. Jaina manuscript libraries today are of great impor¬
tance both for the history of Jainism itself, but also for all aspects of early Indian
cultural and literary history.

Today, there are hundreds of major Indian manuscript libraries in India, and
scores abroad, especially in Europe and the USA. Some are the result of govern¬
ment collection policies, others are royal libraries created by former maharajas.
Yet others are parts of religious endowments, schools, temples, and monasteries.
Finally, there are many private collections.^^

5 Access

Many manuscript libraries and librarians in India and abroad understand schol¬
arship and are extremely helpful to the visiting scholar seeking access to a manu¬
script for research. The Koba Tirth manuscript library, perhaps the largest single
manuscript collection in the world, has exemplary policies towards the promo¬
tion of scholarship, and advanced technical and administrative infrastructures.
But there are exceptions, too. Negotiating access to manuscript collections can
be tortuous and bureaucratic, and sometimes even the most strenuous efforts
fail. Some libraries are just inaccessible, locked with several padlocks whose
key-holders are scattered over a whole state (for example, the Jnana Bhandara
in Jaisalmere). Others are locked pending the resolution to family disputes that
have lasted decades (the Anup Library in Bikaner). Others are located in institu¬
tions that have little interest in Sanskrit scholarship (the Woolner Collection in
Lahore), are paralysed by internal politics (the Sarasvati Bhavan, Varanasi), or
charge prohibitive fees for non-Indian scholars (Baroda Oriental Institute). Cases
could be multiplied. In moments of frustration, Kosambi’s Law of Manuscripts
can be a comfort: “It is a general rule (Kosambi’s law!) that the actual use-value of
a manuscript is inversely proportional to the fuss made in lending it”.^® Reserves
of patience, good will and time are the greatest assets in accessing Indian manu¬
scripts located in traditional settings.

25 Minkowski 2010 provides a valuable survey of libraries, with a focus on the early modern
period.

26 Kosambi 2000 (=1948), 10. D. D. Kosambi was a mathematician, historian, text-editor and
manuscript hunter.

Indian Manuscripts

169

6 Catalogues and finding aids

In textual criticism, it has been said, “the hardest part to carry out with complete
success is probably the business of finding out what manuscripts there are”.^^
How does one find out what manuscripts there are in the Indian case?

In 1868, the government of India instituted a program of manuscript cata¬
loguing and collection.^® India was at that time administered in three large “presi¬
dencies.” In the Bombay and Madras Presidencies, the funds sanctioned by the
1868 decision were spent on a series of regional searches by Sanskrit scholars
including such renowned figures as Franz Kielhorn (1840-1908), Georg Biihler
(1837-1898), Peter Peterson (1847-1899) and Ramakrishna Gopal Bhandarkar
(1837-1925), who published reports on their findings, catalogued local collec¬
tions, acquired manuscripts where available, and commissioned copies of others.
These materials were routed to Poona and Madras respectively, where Govern¬
ment Oriental Manuscript Libraries (GOML) were established.^® These two librar¬
ies still exist, and contain extraordinarily rich collections. Both GOML have issued
scores of volumes of descriptive catalogues of their collections. These collections
continue to grow, mainly by private donation.

In the Bengal Presidency, things were handled differently. Rajendralal
Mitra (1823-1891) and Haraprasad Shastri (1853-1931), two Sanskrit scholars of
immense learning, conducted searches for manuscripts throughout Bengal, visit¬
ing many small private collections. Their manuscript descriptions often included
analyses of the subject content of the manuscripts, and the resulting series of
volumes entitled Notices of Sanskrit Manuscripts offer rich, detailed materials
for the history of literature, often offering the first modern descriptions of previ¬
ously unknown works. However, the actual manuscripts were left in situ, and
no attempt was made to create a centralized manuscript library in Calcutta. This
function was to some extent fulfilled by the Asiatic Society in Calcutta, founded
in the late 18* century, and housing one of the great manuscript libraries of the
subcontinent. This library too has issued many descriptive catalogues, including
volumes by Haraprasad Shastri, and continues to be actively managed today.

During the 19* century, Indian manuscript collections began to be identified,
studied and catalogued in all parts of India, often by European scholars who lived
and worked in India most of their lives. At the same time, some personal Indian
manuscript collections began to find their way to European libraries, as gifts or

27 West 1973, 64.

28 The government correspondence and background to this policy were collected and published
in Gough 1878.

29 lohnson 1980.

170

Dominik Wujastyk

sales by Europeans returning from India. The first major Indian manuscript cat¬
alogues in Europe were those of Theodor Aufrecht (1822-1907) at the Bodleian
and Albrecht Weber (1825-1901) in Berlin.^” Both these early catalogues provided
copious extracts from the manuscripts, and presented the entries in a classified
subject arrangement. It is no coincidence that both Weber and Aufrecht went on
to write histories of Sanskrit literature. These were the beginnings of what would
later be called “bibliographical control” of the field of Indian literature. Another
important catalogue of the period was that of Arthur Coke Burnell, written in
Thanjavur in South India, and published in London.Burnell’s catalogue was
the first to present the holdings of a royal library. It called itself a “Classified
Index.” While Aufrecht and Weber were taking a corpus approach, and catalogu¬
ing bounded, selected collections, with few duplicate works, in depth, Burnell
was solving a different problem, which was to become ever more acute up to the
present day, namely to offer bibliographical control over very large numbers of
manuscripts that included multiple copies of several works. His pioneering work
in this respect was exemplary, and in some ways prefigures the highly condensed
style of the Census of Exact Sciences in Sanskrit by David Pingree (1933-2005), that
had similar aims.^^

By the turn of the 20* century, the number of published catalogues of Indian
manuscripts had already grown large enough to demand a general index. Aufrecht
published such a bibliographical tool in three volumes between 1891 and 1903.^^
While it indexed the existing catalogues, its title declared a larger goal, to be “an
alphabetical register of works and authors.” Aufrecht’s Catalogus Catalogorum
is perhaps the most important finding aid ever published for Indian literature.
Over a century later, scholars working on Indian manuscripts still refer to it fre¬
quently, and Aufrecht’s judgements on authorship and the identity of works are
rarely faulted.

However, half a century later, the Catalogus Catalogorum was no longer
remotely adequate as a guide to the growing numbers published catalogues.
Amongst the most important new items to just miss Aufrecht’s Catalogus Cata¬
logorum were descriptions by Haraprasad Shastri of extremely rare and ancient
Indian manuscripts that he discovered in the Durbar Library in Kathmandu,^'*
and many other volumes and series of catalogues continued to appear. In 1949,
Venkataraman Raghavan (1908-1979), one of the leading Sanskrit scholars of

30 Weber 1853-1891, Aufrecht 1859.

31 Burnell 1880.

32 Pingree 1970-1994.

33 Aufrecht 1891-1903.

34 Sastri 1905,1915.

Indian Manuscripts

171

his day, published the first volume of a New Catalogus Catalogorum (NCC).^^ This
aimed to update Aufrecht’s wrork, but also to add wrorks in the Prakrit languages
(vernaculars closely related to Sanskrit). The NCC project, still located at the Uni¬
versity of Madras, has attracted the expert wtork of several generations of selfless
wrorkers. It has suffered many vicissitudes, and almost collapsed after volume 13
wras published in 1991. One more volume appeared in 2000. Howrever, its present
director, Siniruddha Dash, has been successful in raising funds, galvanising the
project staff, and introducing computing technology. With volume 15, published
in 2007, the project regained its dynamism, and the NCC has now reached volume
19, that ends with titles beginning with “suhodita”. The project is nearing comple¬
tion.

For the titles that it covers, the NCC is the principle finding aid for Indian
manuscripts, and the starting point for any serious editorial or literary-historical
research in pre-modern Indian literature. For works beginning with syllables after
that point, one has to resort to Aufrecht’s original Catalogus Catalogorum coupled
with a laborious search through scores of catalogues and correspondence with
the helpful NCC office in Madras.

Unfortunately, even the NCC is no longer comprehensive. Raghavan froze
the list of excerpted catalogues in the late 1960s. A limited number of later cata¬
logues were added in later decades, but by no means all that had been published.
Dash has revised this policy, and the NCC is now excerpting from recently-pub¬
lished catalogues. Amongst the greatest troves of new manuscript descriptions
now included in NCC are the multiple new volumes of the Rajasthan Oriental
Research Institute (Jodhpur), the Sarasvati Bhavan Library (Varanasi), the Ori¬
ental Research Institute (Mysore), the Government Oriental Manuscripts Libary
(Madras), the French Institute (Pondicherry), the Brindavan Research Institute
(Brindavan) and the Oriental Research Institute and Manuscripts Library (Trivan¬
drum). In spite of these huge additions, the hope for the future must be that the
NCC vdll eventually be transmuted into a public online resource, with facilities
for cooperative international collaboration.

The most comprehensive guide to published catalogues of Indian manu¬
scripts presently available is the Bibliographic Survey of Indian Manuscript Cata¬
logues by A. K. Biswas and M. K. Prajapati.^*’ This covers 1087 catalogues of Indian
manuscripts, but being over a decade old, it is already in need of updating. The
Biswas and Prajapati Survey is modelled on the earlier Annotated Bibliography of

35 Raghavan et al. 1949-.

36 Biswas / Prajapati 1998.

172

Dominik Wujastyk

the Catalogues of Indian Manuscripts by Klaus Janert, that remains valuable for its
accuracy, introduction on manuscript cataloguing, and its notes on collections.^^

7 Manuscript description

From the pre-modern period, there survive numerous informal lists of manu¬
scripts. These are commonly nothing more than hastily-scribbled lists of titles,
often relating to a particular bundle of manuscripts that may or may not still
be identifiable.^® A more formal and famous manuscript listing is that of the
great 17*-century pandit Kavindracarya Sarasvati, who lived during the reign
of Emperor Akbar. Kavindracarya’s catalogue has been published, but unfortu¬
nately his library was scattered, and the exact relationship between the list of
titles and the manuscripts in his library is not fully known.Kavindracarya (or
his librarian) signed his manuscripts with a characteristic flourish, and several
are identifiable today in libraries in India and abroad.'*”

The 19‘*'-century cataloguers, following the 1868 government initiative, fol¬
lowed individual styles of manuscript description, which varied from raw listings
of titles to more detailed catalogues that analysed the works in manuscripts down
to the level of chapters of works, and gave thumbnail sketches of their contents.

In the years following Independence, the Indian Government convened a
Sanskrit Commission, led by several of the most respected Sanskrit scholars of
the day. The Commission took evidence during 1956-57, and published its Report
in 1958.'*^ This was a defining document for Sanskrit in India, addressing many
issues that remain topical half a century later. Among other things, the Report
published the general results of a tour that V. Raghavan had conducted in 1954,
identifying Indian manuscript collections in India and abroad.'*^ As a result of his
engagement with Indian codicology, Raghavan produced a blueprint for manu-

37 Janert 1965.

38 For example, Wellcome Indie MSS alpha 746 and alpha 1099 (Wujastyk 1985, 1998, vol. 2,
143-44).

39 Kavindracarya’s catalogue was published by Sastry 1921 and has been discussed by Code
1945. See also Code 1946 and Code 1940. Kavindracarya’s life has been the subject of several
studies, from Sharma 1935 onwards.

40 E.g., Wellcome MSS Indie beta 362, beta 509, and gamma 507 (Wujastyk 1985,1998 vol.l, 84),
all manuscripts on logic.

41 Government of India 1958. Transcribed at <http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/u/45/
Book45.htm> (consulted August 2011).

42 Raghavan often prepared rapid handlists of the less well-known collections he visited, and in
many cases these handlists remain the only finding aids for those collections even today.

Indian Manuscripts

173

script cataloguing in India.'*^ A government scheme was introduced by which
any library producing a catalogue that adhered to the Raghavan blueprint would
receive funding from central sources for the publication of the resulting cata¬
logue. This scheme has led to the publication of many hundreds of catalogues
of Indian manuscripts. In essence, the blueprint provides for entering informa¬
tion into what today would be called a spreadsheet, with columns for manuscript
number, title, author, material, extent, and notes.

Predictably, Raghavan’s influential scheme had virtues and failings. Amongst
its virtues was that it provided a public reference for untrained cataloguers, it
encouraged the rapid listing of very large collections, and it was coupled with
a funded publication scheme. Its failings are more subtle. First, and most obvi¬
ously, with roughly a single line across two pages for recording information, the
blueprint sanctioned the widespread publication of minimal-level cataloguing.
The resulting catalogues would more properly be termed handlists or accession-
level cataloguing. Less obvious, however, was the promulgation of the idea that
a manuscript equalled a work. In this view, a catalogue was a list of titles, rather
than a list of physical objects. This idea has taken strong hold in Indian manu¬
script cataloguing, and has often been adopted as an unexamined assumption
by cataloguers. Cataloguers of the great European libraries have moved deci¬
sively towards describing a manuscript as a physical object that is a carrier of
written texts that are treated as analytical entries, an approach demonstrated,
for example, in the exemplary catalogues of Neil R. Ker and Andrew G. Watson.
This means that each leaf of a manuscript is examined in sequence for what it
contains, and the contents are described following this physical sequence. The
introduction and indexes of the catalogue are where a unified view of the liter¬
ary contents of the individual manuscripts, and the collection as a whole, are
presented.

By contrast, catalogues of Indian manuscripts normally present lists of works
as if they were lists of manuscripts, silently asserting a false identity between
work and manuscript. This leads to the elision of written materials that are not
classical works as such, for example scribal comments, marginal glosses, ovmer-
ship notes, multiple works, minor works attached to famous works, and so forth.
To give one example, the Bhagavad Gita, “The Song of the Lord,” the most famous
religious text of India, is routinely identified as such in manuscript catalogues.
However, almost no manuscript actually contains the Bhagavad Gita alone. The
work is commonly preceded by a smaller introductory work called the Bhagavad
Gita Mala, “The Garland of the Song of the Lord.” What this text is, how if func-

43 Raghavan 1963.

174

Dominik Wujastyk

tions in relation to the main work, what it meant for pre-modern religious prayer
and religious practice, and other text-historical questions cannot be asked if no
catalogue recognises its existence.

Another drawback of Raghavan’s blueprint is that it does not provide obvious
space for incipits and explicits. Since pre-modern Indian literature is so vast, and
still so under-studied, and because many works have similar titles, or exist in mul¬
tiple recensions, an extract from the work can often be the only way of being sure
what work one is seeing. Some cataloguers have realized this, and perhaps been
influenced by the better “columnar” catalogues such as that of Peter Peterson.''''
These columnar catalogues include large appendices giving copious, essential
extracts from the manuscripts. As a result, a useful compromise has sometimes
been achieved. Works can be definitively identified, but the Raghavan blueprint
is adhered to. Thus the catalogue still attracts publication funding.

Only a few cataloguing projects for Indian materials have brought together
adequate funding and scholarly expertise. The descriptive work of Chandrabhal
Tripathi on the Jaina manuscripts in Strasbourg stands out as an exemplary work
from many points of view.''^ Tripathi’s “Introduction” to the work offers an excel¬
lent, concise treatise on many aspects of Indian manuscript studies, and the
descriptive entries are a model of what can be achieved. The catalogues of David
Pingree also stand out as models of the concise but detailed description of large
collections.'''’ Yet Pingree’s catalogues are untypical because of their ability to
depend so heavily on his literary-prosopographical Census of the Exact Sciences
in Sanskrit^

8 Future cataloguing

In the longer term, it is to be hoped that international cataloguing standards for
manuscripts will spread, and influence work on Indian collections as elsewhere.
Unfortunately, standards promoted by important bodies such as the American
Library Association make not the least gesture towards the work of Indian manu¬
script cataloguing.''® The work on manuscript description done in the context of
the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) shows promise for the Indian case, and TEI-

44 Peterson 1892.

45 Tripathi 1975.

46 E.g., Pingree 1984, Pingree 2003, Pingree 2004, and Pingree 2007.

47 Pingree 1970-1994.

48 Pass 2003.

Indian Manuscripts

175

encoded records may become the standard for exchange and internet publication
in the future.''®

In the rare cases when funding becomes available for Indian manuscript cata¬
loguing today, it is common for a database to be considered as a first step towards
gaining bibliographical control over the collection. Unfortunately, because of
the absence at the present time of an obvious, free standard cataloguing tool,
individual projects typically implement their own local solutions, and these are
often naive from the point of view of data analysis and data normalisation. In
the present author’s experience, only one software tool implements an adequate
data design for manuscript work, the Philobiblon database currently maintained
by the Bancroft Library, University of California.®” This tool, originally designed
for work with Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan manuscripts, has been applied to
Indian manuscript description with great success, due to its deep analysis of the
generic data structures involved in cataloguing and prosopography.®^ Critically,
Philobiblon provides separate tables for people, manuscripts, and works, and
enforces normalisation and relational links between multi-value fields in these
tables.®^ However, Philobiblon’s software implementation and other factors mean
that it remains a niche product, more useful as a model of superb data analysis
than as a tool for widespread use in the cataloguing community.®®

A future collaborative, open access, web-based cataloguing tool for manu¬
script description and prosopography will, it is ardently to be hoped, one day
bring bibliographical control of the vast resources of Indian manuscript material
within reach.

9 Textual criticism and editorial technique

Pre-modern Indian scribes and commentators often showed an awareness that
the manuscript record before them contained imperfections.®® To take but one
example, from Sanskrit medical literature, the commentators Gayadasa (ca. 1000)
and Dalhana (ca. 12*^ century) note many variant readings that were in circula-

49 The TEI Consortium 2010, chapter 10 “Manuscript description.”

50 <http;//bancroft.berkeley.edu/philobiblon/>, consulted August 2011.

51 Faulhaber 1991 provides an early description of the data model.

52 There are, in fact, a small number of further tables, including geographical locations, institu¬
tions, and some other key data elements.

53 Philobiblon is implemented in a Windows-based software environment called Advanced Rev-
elation/Openinsight, that is a dialect of the Pick operating system.

54 Colas 2001 (cf. Colas 1999), Colas 2011.

176

Dominik Wujastyk

tion for the Susrutasamhita or “Compendium of Susruta,” composed in the early
centuries CE.^^ In parts of the text, they note that the manuscripts available to
them had alternative readings to almost every verse. The variability of Susruta’s
text was so obvious even a millennium ago that it spurred the creation of a work
of medieval textual criticism, Candrata’s Susmtapdthasuddhi, “Correction of the
readings in Susruta,” probably written at about the turn of the 11* century.^®

The canons of textual criticism and the historical awareness of text varia¬
tion and stemmatics that slowly evolved from Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614)
through Richard Bentley (1662-1742), Karl Lachmann (1793-1851), Paul Maas
(1880-1964), Giorgio Pasquali (1885-1952) and many others, are equally appli¬
cable to the Indian case. The most famous critical edition of a Sanskrit text is that
of the 19-volume Mahdbhdrata, edited by S. V. Sukthankar, S. K. Belvalkar, and
others.Sukthankar’s “Prolegomena” to the edition introduced an Indian read¬
ership to text-critical methodology, and raised many of the special problems of
editing Indian texts.^® Many of these issues have continued to be discussed to the
present day. The size of the manuscript record, however, can be daunting. Schol¬
ars of Indian philology and the cultural history of South Asia often lament the
absence of critical editions of important texts, and the small numbers of scholars
interested in undertaking critical editions. By and large, these fields are based
on the study of 19*- and early 20*-century vulgate editions that were published
in Bombay and Calcutta on the basis of a few locally available manuscripts and
a policy of selecting “good” readings, with an uncritical attitude towards what
constituted such readings.

However, there has been something of a revival of interest in textual criticism,
stemmatics, and the creation of critical editions of Sanskrit and Prakrit works
in the last two decades. Several admirable and theoretically interesting critical
editions have been published,^® and encouraging work continues in text-critical
work and the discovery, description and analysis of manuscripts. The Nepalese-
German Manuscript Cataloguing Project at the University of Hamburg is an exem¬
plary project of this type.®” The research into Indian manuscript stemmatics has

55 These commentators’ notes are available in the edition of Acarya 1915. On Gayadasa, see Meu-
lenbeld 1999-2002, lA, 380-383; on Dalhana, see ibid. 376-378.

56 Meulenbeld 1999-2002, IIA, 123.

57 Sukthankar et al. 1933-1959.

58 Sukthankar 1933. Katre 1941 was written at Sukthankar’s request, as a development of his
“Prolegomena.”

59 Examples of exceptional interest from different points of view include Srinivasan 1967, Good-
all / Isaacson 2003-, Olivelle / Olivelle 2005, Steinkellner 2007. Examples could easily be mul¬
tiplied.

60 <http://www.uni-hamburg.de/ngmcp/index_e.html>, consulted in August 2011.

Indian Manuscripts

177

recently taken an interesting theoretical turn with the application of cladistic
analysis software and the methods of evolutionary biology to Indian manuscript
traditions.®^ Such approaches, which have been tried before in other contexts, are
new to Indian philology. These methods offer the promise of analysing very large
numbers of variant readings, and perhaps at last making tractable the pervasive
problem of horizontal contamination.

In spite of these advances, which have mostly taken place at scholarly centres
outside India, real progress in the recovery and deep understanding of the Indian
literary heritage and the ocean of Indian manuscript sources that testify to it, will
only come when Indian universities awake from their fascination with English,
however valuable that may be, and begin teaching classical Indian languages on
a wide scale, together with modern techniques of primary and secondary textual
criticism. It remains to be seen whether this will happen before the Indian manu¬
script heritage has physically decayed beyond recovery.

References

Acarya, Y. T. (ed.) (1915), Susrutasamhita, Susrutena viracita, Vaidyavarasndalhanac
dryaviracitayd Nibandhasamgrahdkhyavydkhyayd samullasitd, Acdryopdhvena
Trivikramdtmajena Yddavasarmand samsodhitd (The Sushrutasamhita ofSushruta,
the Nibandhasangraha Commentary of Shri Dalhandchdrya, Mumbayyam:
Nirnayasagaramudrayantralaye.

Allen, William Sidney (1953), Phonetics in Ancient India, London, New York: Oxford University
Press.

Allinger, Eva (2012), “The Epsilon 1 Manuscript in the Wellcome Library, London”, in: Wiener
Zeitschriftfur die Kunde Sudostasiens, 54,151-184.

Altekar, A. S. (1944), Education in Ancient India (2"'* edition), Benares: Nand Kishore 8i Bros.

Aufrecht, Theodor (1859), Codices Sanscriticas complectens, Oxonii: E Typographeo Claren-
doniano.

Aufrecht, Theodor (1891-1903), Catalogus Catalogorum, an Alphabetical Register of Works and
Authors, Leipzig: German Oriental Society.

Biswas, Subhas C. / Prajapati, M. K.(1998), Bibliographic Survey of Indian Manuscript
Catalogues: Being a Union List of Manuscript Catalogues, Delhi: Eastern Book Linkers.

Bose, Phanindranath (1923), Indian Teachers Of Buddhist Universities, Madras: Theosophical
Publishing House.

Bretelle-Establet, Florence (ed.) (2010), Looking at it from Asia: The Processes that Shaped the
Sources of History of Science, Vo[. 265, Dordrecht, New York: Springer.

Burnell, Arthur Coke (1880), A Classified Index to the Sanskrit Mss. In the Palace at Tanjore,
London: Triibner.

61 Maas 2009, Maas 2010.

178

Dominik Wujastyk

Colas, Gerard (2001), “Critique et transmission des textes dans la litterature sanskrite”,
in: Giard / Christian 2001, 309-328.

Colas, Gerard (2011) “Relecture et techniques de correction dans les manuscrits indiens:
L’exemple des manuscrits Sanskrits philosophiques du fonds Chandra Shum Shere”, in:
Jacob 2011, 494-520.

Colas, Gerard (1999), “The Criticism and Transmission of Texts in Classical India”, in: Diogenes
lil, 30-43.

Cort, John E. (1995), “The Jain Knowledge Warehouses: Traditional Libraries in India”,
in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 115, 77-87.

Eliot, Simon / Nash, Andrew / Willison, ian (eds.): Literary Cultures and the Material Book,
London: The British Library.

Falk, Harry (1993), Schriftim alten Indien: ein Forschungsbericht mit Anmerkungen, Tubingen:
Gunter Narr.

Faulhaber, Charles B. (1991), “Philobiblion: Problems and Solutions in a Relational Data Base of
Medieval Texts”, in: Linguistic and Literary Computing 6, 89-96.

Filliozat, Pierre-Sylvain (2000), The Sanskrit Language: History and Structure, Linguistic and
Philosophical Representations, Uses and Users, Varanasi: indica Books.

Giard, Luce / Jacob, Christian (eds.) (2001), Des Alexandries i. Du livre au texte, Paris:
Bibliotheque nationale de France.

Gode, P. K. (1940), “Bernier and KavTndracarya SarasvatT at the Mughal Court”, in: Annals of
S. V. Oriental Institute (Tirupati) 1, 1-16.

Gode, P. K. (1945), “Some Evidence about the Location of the Manuscript Library of

KavTndracarya SarasvatT at Benares in A.D. 1665”, in: C. Kunhan Raja (ed.): jagadvijay-
achandas of Kavindracharya. Bikaner: Anup Sanskrit Library, xlvii-lvii.

Gode, P. K. (1946), “An interesting Anecdote about KavTndracarya SarasvatT Recorded by Bernier
in his Letter from Delhi Dated the 1st July 1663”, in: Journal of the Kalinga Historical
Research Society 1, 183-5.

Goodall, Dominic / Isaacson, Harunaga (2003-), The Raghupahcikd ofVallabhadeva: Being the
Earliest Commentary on the Raghuvamsa of Kalidasa, Groningen: E. Forsten.

Gough, A. E. (1878), Papers Relating to the Collection and Preservation of the Records of Ancient
Sanskrit Literature ofindia, Calcutta: Office of Superintendent of Government Printing.

Government of India (1958), Report of the Sanskrit Commission, 1956-1957, Delhi: Manager of
Publications.

Grimal, Francois (ed.) (2001), Les sources etle temps; Sources and Time, Vol. 91, Pondichery:
institut Fran^ais de Pondichery, Ecole Frangaise d’Extreme-Orient.

Jacob, Christian (ed.) (2007): Espaces etCommunautes, Vol. 1, Paris: Michel Albin.

Jacob, Christian (ed.) (2011), Lieux de Savoir2: Les mains de I’intellect, Paris: Albin Michel.

Janert, Klaus Ludwig (1965), An Annotated Bibliography of the Catalogues of Indian
Manuscripts, Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Johnson, Donald Clay (1999), “Jain Collections and Libraries: Past and Present”, in: Wagle /
Qvarnstorm 1999, 372-378.

Johnson, Donald Clay (1980), Government Concern for the Development of Libraries: Sanskrit
Manuscript Libraries in india, 1858-1937, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms.

Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Johnson, W. J. (2001), The Recognition ofSakuntald: a play in seven acts; Sakuntald in the
Mahdbhdrata, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Indian Manuscripts

179

Kasliwal, Kastoor Chand (1967), jaina Grantha Bhandars in Rajasthan, Jaipur: Gaindi Lai Sah,
for the Shri Digamber Jain Atishaya Kshetra Shri Mahavirji, Mahavir Bhavan.

Katre, S. M. (1941), Introduction to Indian Textual Criticism. With appendix II, “A Brief Note on
the History and Progress of Cataloguing of Sanskrit and other MSS in India and Outside
(between AD 1800 and 1941)” by P. K. Gode, Bombay: Karnatak Publishing House.

Kosambi, D. D. (2000 [1948]), The Epigrams Attributed to Bhartrhari. Including the Three
Centuries for the First Time Collected and Critically Edited, with Principal Variants and
an Introduction (First published in 1948, as no. 23 of the Singhi Jain Series), New Delhi:
Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.

Losty, Jeremiah (1982), The Art of the Book in India, London: The British Library.

Maas, Philipp A. (2009), “Computer Aided Stemmatics - The Case of Fifty-two Text Versions of
Carakasarnhita Vimanasthana 8.67-157”, in: WienerZeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens
52-53, 63-119.

Maas, Philipp A. (2010), “On what became of the Carakasarnhita after Drdhabala’s revision”,
in: Electronic journal of Indian Medicine 3,1-22.

Meulenbeld, Gerritjan (1999-2002), A History of Indian Medical Literature, 5vols., Groningen:
E. Forsten.

Minkowski, Christopher (2010), “Sanskrit Scientific Libraries and Their Uses: Examples and
Problems of the Early Modern Period”, in: Bretelle-Establet 2010, 81-114.

Mookerji, Radha Kumud, (1947), Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist),

London: Macmillan.

O’Hanlon, Rosalind / Minkowski, Christopher (2008), “What makes people who they are?

Pandit networks and the problem of livelihoods in early modern Western India”, in: The
Indian Economic and Social History Review 45, 381-416.

Olivelle, Patrick / Olivelle, Suman (2005), Manu’s Code of Law: a Critical Edition and Translation
oftheManava-Dharmasastra, New York: Oxford University Press.

Pass, Gregory (2003), Descriptive Cataloging of Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance, and Early
Modern Manuscripts, Chicago: American Library Association.

Peterson, Peter (1892), Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the H. H. the
Maharaja ofUlwar, Bombay: Times of India Press.

Pingree, David Edwin (1970-1994), A Census of the Exact Sciences in Sanskrit, 5 vol., but

unfinished at the time of the author’s death in 2005. Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society.

Pingree, David Edwin (1984), A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit and Other Indian
Manuscripts of the Chandra Shum Shere Collection in the Bodleian Library, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.

Pingree, David Edwin (2003), A Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Astronomical Manuscripts
Preserved at the Maharaha Man Singh II Museum in Jaipur, India, Philadelphia, PA:
American Philosophical Society.

Pingree, David Edwin (2004), Catalogue ofjyotisa Manuscripts in the Wellcome Library.

Sanskrit Astral and Mathematical Literature, Leiden: Brill.

Pingree, David Edwin (2007), A Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts at Columbia University,
New York: American Institute of Buddhist Studies.

Pollock, Sheldon (2007), “Literary Culture and Manuscript Culture in Precolonial India”,
in: Eliot / Nash / Willison 2007, 77-94.

Raghavan, V. (1963), Manuscripts, Catalogues, Editions: Steps Taken for the Collection,

Preservation and Utilisation of Manuscripts. Prepared for the Seminar on Manuscripts and

180

Dominik Wujastyk

Textual Criticism Conducted by the Ministry of Scientific Research and Cultural Affairs at
Bangalore, November 1963. s.l.: s.n.

Raghavan, V. / Kunjunni Raja, K. / Sundaram, C. S. / Veezhinathan, N. / Gangadharan, N. et al.
(1949-), New Catalogus Catalogorum, an Alphabetical Register of Sanskrit and Allied
Works and Authors. References to vol. 1 are to the revised 1968 edition. Madras: University
of Madras.

Salomon, Richard (1990), “New Evidence for a GandharT Origin of the Arapacana Syllabary”,
in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 110, 255-73.

Salomon, Richard (1995), “On the Origin of the Early Indian Scripts: a Review Article”,
in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 115, 271-79.

Salomon, Richard (1998), indian Epigraphy: a Guide to the Study of inscriptions in Sanskrit,
Prakrit, and the other indo-Aryan Languages. Reprinted: New Delhi, Munshiram
Manoharlal, 1998. New York: Oxford University Press.

Salomon, Richard (2003), “The Senior Manuscripts: Another Collection of Gandharan Buddhist
Scrolls”, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 123, 73-92.

Sanderson, Alexis (2001), “History Through Textual Criticism in the Study of Saivism, the
Paficaratra and the Buddhist YoginTtantras”, in: Grimal 2001, 1-47.

Sastri, Hara Prasad (1905,1915), A Catalogue of Palm-leaf and Selected Paper MSS. Belonging
to the Durbar Library Nepal, Calcutta: Baptist Mission Press.

Sastry, R. A. (ed.) (1921), Kavindracharya List, Baroda: Central Library.

Scharfe, Hartmut (2002), Education in Ancient India, Leiden: Brill.

Sharma, Har Dutt (1935), “A Forgotten Event of Shah jehan’s Reign”, in: C.K. Raja and P.P.S.
Sastri: Mahamahopadhyaya Kuppuswami Sastri Commemoration Volume (Studies in
indology). Madras: G. S. Press, 53-60.

Srinivasan, Srinivasa Ayya (1967), Vacaspatimisras Tattvakaumudl: ein Beitragzur Textkritikbei
kontaminierter Uberlieferung, Hamburg: Gram, de Gruyter.

Steinkellner, Ernst (2007), Dharmakirti’s Pramdnaviniscaya: chapters 1 and2. Sanskrit

(Devanagari script) with English commentary. Beijing and Vienna: China Tibetology and
the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Sukthankar, S. Vishnu (1933), “Prolegomena”, in: Sukthankar, Sjitaram] Vishnu / Belvalkar,
Sjhripad] Kjrishna] etal(eds.): The Adiparvan, being the First Book of the Mahdbhdrata,
the Great Epic ofindia, Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, i-cx.

Sukthankar, S. V. / Belvalkar, S. K. et al. (eds.) (1933-1959), The Mahdbhdrata, 19 vol., Poona:
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.

Thapar, Romila (1997), Asoka and the decline of the Mauryas: with new afterword, bibliography
and index. First published in 1961. 2. ed. Delhi, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The TEI Consortium (2010): Sperberg-McQueen, C.M. / Burnard, Lou / the Technical Council of
the TEI Consortium / Bauman, S. (eds.): TEi PS: Guidelines for Electronic Text Encoding and
interchange, Oxford, Providence, Charlottesville, Nancy: TEI Consortium.

TripathT, Chandrabhal (1975), Catalogue of the Jaina manuscripts at Strasbourg. Originally
presented as the author’s thesis, Freie Universitat, Berlin. Leiden: Brill.

Wagle, N. K. / Qvarnstorm, Olle (eds.) (1999), Approaches to Jaina Studies: Philosophy, Logic,
Rituals, and Symbols, Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Weber, Albrecht (1853-1891), Verzeichniss der Sanskrit- und Prdkrit-Handschriften, 2 vols.,
Berlin: A. W. Schade’s Buchdruckerei.

West, Martin L. (1973), Textual Criticism and Editorial Technique applicable to Greek and Latin
Texts, Stuttgart: Teubner.

Indian Manuscripts

181

Wujastyk, Dominik (2007), “La bibliotheque de Thanjavur”, in: Jacob 2007, 616-636.

Wujastyk, Dominik (1985,1998), A Handlist of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts in the Library of
the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, 2 vol., London: The Wellcome Institute
for the History of Medicine.

Stefan Baums

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an
Ancient Manuscript Type'

1 Introduction

Recent discoveries in ancient Gandhara and its cultural sphere (modern eastern
Afghanistan and northern Pakistan) have brought to light a rvealth of newr mate¬
rial evidence for the oldest indigenous manuscript type of this region: birch-bark
scrolls in a range of formats, the large majority of them inscribed rvith Buddhist
texts in the Gandhari language (a Middle Indian dialect descended from Sanskrit
and related to Pali and the Prakrits) and Kharosthi script (an adaptation of the
Aramaic script for the writing of Indian texts).^ Prior to these new discoveries,
only one single manuscript of this kind was known to scholarship - a long scroll
containing a Gandhari version of the Dharmapada, found outside the center of
Gandharan culture near Khotan on the Southern Silk Road (Brough 1962) - but
stray reports (summarized in Salomon 1999, 57-68) had already made it likely
that a substantial number of Gandharan scroll manuscripts had once existed and
might be recovered. This process of recovery is now well underway and shows no
signs of abating, new discoveries of Gandhari manuscripts and inscriptions being
announced at frequent intervals. Restricting ourselves to those manuscripts that
at this point have received at least a preliminary description in print, we now
know of more than 89 Gandharan birch-bark scrolls written by more than 51 dif¬
ferent scribes and containing approximately 115 distinct texts from a wide range of
literary genres (including sutras, canonical verse texts, vinaya texts, stotras, epi¬
sodes from the life of the Buddha, accounts of previous and future buddhas, story
collections, commentaries on canonical texts, scholastic treatises, Mahayana
sutras, magical texts, a verse abecedary, a treatise on statecraft, a letter and a
text inventory). One of these sutras (BL 6, see section 6) is written in Sanskrit

1 Thanks are due to Ingo Strauch (Lausanne) for access to unpublished material in the Bajaur
Collection, to Reinhard Lehmann (Mainz) for information on the Aramaic scribal tradition, and
to Jan-Ulrich Sobisch (Copenhagen) for inviting me to present the paper from which this article
evolved. It was completed at Bukkyo University in Kyoto, and I would like to thank the Bukkyo
Dendd Kydkai for making this visit possible as well as my colleagues in Kyoto for providing such
a friendly and productive environment.

2 The following abbreviations are used to refer to this material: BC (Bajaur Collection), BL (Brit¬
ish Library Collection), Dhp-G*' (Gandhari Dharmapada from Khotan), LC (Library of Congress
scroll), RS (Robert Senior Collection) and SC (‘Split’ Collection).

184

Stefan Baums

using the Brahmi script, and the treatise on statecraft is written in Sanskrit using
the Kharosthi script. The exact findspots and archeological contexts of the large
majority of these scrolls are regrettably unknown because they were not found in
archeological excavations, but only reached scholars after being traded on the
art market; only the provenience of the Bajaur collection can be established more
or less reliably from information provided by the finder. On the basis of palaeo-
graphic and linguistic features as well as radiocarbon analysis, the scrolls can
be dated to the 1®' and 2°'^ centuries CE, and there are indications that at least
some of them are as old as the 1®* century BCE (Salomon 1999, 141-155, Allon/
Salomon/Jacobsen/Zoppi 2006, Falk 2011,19-20). In addition to these more than
89 Gandharan birch-bark scrolls, discoveries at Bamiyan in central Afghanistan
have produced around 275 fragments of palm-leaf manuscripts in Kharosthi
script, written by ca. 50 scribes and containing an undetermined number of texts;
a few further specimens of such palm-leaf manuscripts were found in Central
Asia at the beginning of the 20*^ century (Salomon 1998, Vorob’eva-Desiatovskaia
2006). Table 1 provides an overview of the scroll and Kharosthi palm-leaf material
now at our disposal (updating the table in Salomon 2009, 33).

Sections 3-5 of this article provide a comprehensive description of the con¬
struction and use of Gandharan scrolls, on the basis of a detailed investigation of
ten well-preserved published scrolls supplemented by information from the body
of unpublished material.^ Section 6 presents a new hypothesis concerning the
origin of this format.''

2 Source material

The ten scrolls forming the focus of this study were found in three different manu¬
script deposits. Six of them (BE 1, BL 5B, BL 9, BL12 + 14, BL13 and BL16 + 25) were
among the first new discovery of Gandhari manuscripts, in a clay pot from a Dhar-
maguptaka monastery (Salomon 1999, pi. 5), and were acquired by the British
Library in 1994; they probably date to the 1®* century CE. Three more scrolls (RS 5,
RS14, RS 19) belong to the second new discovery, in a clay pot bearing a relic-ded-

3 The following seven scrolls have been published but are too fragmentary to be used as core
material for this study: BL 2 (Lenz 2010, 95), BL 3A (Lenz 2010,105), BL 3B (Baums 2009, 269), BL
5A (Salomon 2000, 218), BL 7 (Baums 2009, 67-69), BL 18 (Baums 2009, 67-69) and BL 21 (Lenz
2010 ).

4 The principal earlier discussions of the Gandharan scroll format are Senart 1898, 198-200,
Kaye 1927, 7-10, Janert 1955/56, 65-74 and Brough 1962,18 (Khotan Dharmapada), Salomon 1999,
87-109 (Khotan Dharmapada and BL Collection) and Strauch 2008,106-108 (Bajaur Collection).

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

185

Tab. 1: Overview of Gandharan scrolls and Kharosthi palm-leaf manuscripts

Collection or
manuscript

Provenience and

date

Contents

Container

References

British Library
Collection

unknown

Istc. CE(?)

28 birch-bark
scrolls by 21
scribes

clay pot donated
to a Dharmagup-
taka monastery

Salomon 1999,
Salomon 2014,

4-6

Bajaur Collection

Mian Kill, Dir,

Pakistan

Istc. CE(?)

18 birch-bark
scrolls by 18
scribes

rectangular
stone compart¬
ment in monas¬
tery

Strauch 2008,
Falk/Strauch

2014

Library of
Congress scroll

unknown

Istc. CE(?)

one birch-bark
scroll by two
scribes

unknown

Salomon/Baums
2007, Salomon
2014, 8-9

‘New’ or ‘Split’
Collection

unknown

1st - 2nd c. CE

more than 16

birch-bark scrolls
by more than
seven scribes

unknown

Baums 2009,
38-39, 42, Allon/
Salomon 2010,

11, Falk 2011,
Salomon 2014,
9-10, Falk/

Strauch 2014

Senior Collection

unknown

2nd c. CE

24 birch-bark
scrolls by one
scribe

clay pot with
relic-donation
inscri ption

Salomon 2003,
Allon 2007, Allon

2014

Khotan

Dharmapada

Kohmari Mazar,
Xinjiang, China
2nd c. CE(?)

one birch-bark
scroll by one
scribe

next to clay
vessel in cave

Brough 1962

University of
Washington scroll

unknown

2nd c. CE(?)

one birch-bark
scroll by one
scribe

unknown

Glass 2004,
141-142, Cox
2014, 39

Bamiyan

fragments

Bamiyan,

Afghanistan

2nd - 4th c. CE

ca. 275 palm-leaf
fragments by ca.
50 scribes

unknown

Allon/Salomon
2000, Salomon
2014, 6-8

Pelliot and
Ol’denburg
fragments

Northern Silk
Road, Xinjiang,
China

2nd - 4th c. CE

nine palm-leaf
fragments by
four or more

scribes

unknown

Salomon 1998,
Vorob’eva-Desia-

tovskaia 2006

ication formula dated to the year 12 (probably of the Kaniska era, and thus cor¬
responding to 140 CE), and are part of the private collection of Robert Senior. The

186

Stefan Baums

tenth scroll (Dhp-G^) was discovered in 1892 near Khotan and is now preserved
partly in the Bibliotheque nationale de France in Paris, partly in the Institute
for Eastern Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg; it
probably dates to the 2"*^ century CE.

It is apparent at first glance that these scrolls have two different physical
formats. Five of them (BE 1, BL 9, BE 12 + 14, BE 13 and Dhp-G’’') are narrow but
long, vdth widths ranging from 14 to 21 cm and original heights of up to 250 and
500 cm (in the two cases where this can be estimated reliably; Figure 1). The other
physical type (BE 5B, BE 16 + 25,^ RS 5, RS 14 and RS 19) consists of somewhat
wider but much shorter scrolls, with widths from ca. 20 to 27 cm and heights from
17.2 to 44.4 cm (Figure 2). These manuscripts contain a variety of textual genres
that do not have any obvious correlation with their physical types: two collec¬
tions of sutras (BE 12 +14, RS 5) and one individual sutra (RS 19), four canonical
verse texts (BE 1, BE 5B, BE 16 + 25, RS 14), and one commentary on an anthology
of canonical verses spread over at least three scrolls, two of which (BE 9, BE 13)
are included in this study. In four of the scrolls, the primary text is followed by a
secondary text: another verse commentary on scroll BE 13, and story sketches on
scrolls BE 1, BE 12 +14 and BE 16 + 25. The primary texts of these scrolls were pro¬
duced by five different scribes; a sixth scribe added the story sketches to scrolls
BE 1, BE 12 +14 and BE 16 + 25, and a seventh scribe added the second commen¬
tary to scroll BE 13 (see Table 2 for further details).

5 The extant portion of this scroll consists of a single sheet with a width of 23 cm and a preserved
height of 40.5 cm, placing it squarely in the range of the short-format scrolls. Its overall propor¬
tions most closely resemble those of scroll BL 5B from the same manuscript deposit (Table 2
and Figure 3). Lenz 2003 does not discuss the construction of the scroll, but needle holes are
clearly visible to the left of lines 18, 21-22, 25, 29-37, 41-43 and 46 on his plates 6 and 7. While
stitched margins are more typical of long-format scrolls, they do occur with short-format scrolls,
and one of the two other clear examples is again scroll BL 5B (section 3). The content of scroll
BL 16 + 25 corresponds to the last thirteen verses of the second chapter of the Khotan Dharma-
pada, providing a parallel with the short-format scroll RS 14 which contains the first chapter
of the Anavataptagdthd and probably formed the first of a set of scrolls (Salomon 2008, 10-11,
330-331). If scroll BL 16 + 25 was also part of a set, inscribed on the recto only and containing the
first two chapters of a Dharmapada (pace Norman 2004,118-119; section 4), then the lost text -
requiring ca. 89 cm of vertical space - can be distributed between two lost scrolls with a height
of 43 cm each and a lost strip with a height of 3 cm at the top of BL 16 + 25, resulting in three
evenly-sized scrolls with a height very close to that of BL 5B. Finally, BL 16 + 26 was clearly folded
in half horizontally (Lenz 2003, 3-4), another characteristic of short-format scrolls (section 5).

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

187

Fig. 1: Long-format Gandharan scroll BL 9 (Baums 2009, pi. 3-9).

Stefan Baums

188 -

Fig. 2: Short-format Gandharan scroll RS 5 (Glass 2007, pi. 1).

3 Production

The raw material of Gandharan scrolls was the periderm of one or more birch
species (especially Betula utilis).*’ This living tissue separates the dead outer bark
of the tree from the living inner bark and itself consists of three functional layers:
cork tissue, cork cambium and cork cortex (Yamauchi 2009,15-16). Embedded in
and crossing through these layers are numerous lenticels, porous areas that have

6 Previous discussions include Biihler 1877,1896, 88, Janert 1955/56, 65-72 and Vorob’eva-Desia-
tovskaia 1987-88, 27-38.

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

189

the shape of narrow horizontal ellipses and that are responsible for the exchange
of gases between the environment and the inner bark of the tree. The periderm of
the tree stem is further crossed by the wooden tissue of twigs that grow out of it.

The use of bark as writing material in early Gandhara is confirmed by the
Roman historian Curtius Rufus, who in the century CE writes in his history of
Alexander the Great:

libri arborum teneri baud secus quam chartae litterarum notas capiunt.^

A passage from the Mdkandikdvaddna (in the Mulasarvdstivddavinaya and the
Divydvaddna) lists birch bark and writing utensils that are used at a recital of
Buddhist texts, presumably to reduce part of the oral transmission and explana¬
tion to writing:

eta darika ratrau pradipena buddhavacanam pathanti. atra bhurjena prayojanam tailena
masina kamalaya tulena.®

Writing on birch bark is most famously evoked in classical Sanskrit literature
by Kalidasa at the beginning of his Kumdrasambhava, where the Himalaya is
described as:

nyastaksara dhaturasena yatra bhurjatvacah’

and, especially, in the second act of his drama Vikmmorvasiya, where the heroine
Urvasi uses an improvised birch-bark letter to confess her love to the king who on
receiving it exclaims:

bhurjapattragatoyam aksaravinyasah“

(see Janert 1955/56, 65-66 for further details of the description of the bark in this
passage).

7 ‘(Sheets of) tree bark, hardly less supple than (papyrus?) sheets, capture the records of litera¬
ture.’ - It is unclear whether this was the case in the time of Alexander himself or is an anach¬
ronism introduced by Curtius Rufus on the basis of contemporary practice; cf. section 6 on Ne-
archus’s reference to cloth letters.

8 ‘These girls recite the word of the Buddha at night by lamplight. Birch bark, oil, ink, a pen and
cotton are needed for this.’

9 ‘Where birch skins are inscribed with letters by means of mineral liquid.’

10 ‘it is an inscription of letters on a birch sheet!’

190

Stefan Baums

Tab. 2: Overview often Gandharan scrolls (arranged by width)

Dimensions (cm)

Construc¬

tion

Scribes

Content

Description

BL9

14 X 118.6 +x

multi¬

sheet

BL scribe 4

commenta ry

Baums 2009,

67-69

BL13

14 X 70.3 +x

multi¬

sheet

BL scribe 4,
BL scribe 14

commenta ry,
commenta ry

Baums 2009,

67-69

BLl

15.1 X ca. 250”

multi¬

sheet

BL scribe 1,

BL scribe 2

Anavataptagathd,
story sketches

Salomon 2008,
83-87, Lenz

2010, 51”

12-H14

ca. 15.5 X 76 +x

multi¬

sheet

BL scribe 1,

BL scribe 2

three Ekottarikdgama
sutras, story sketches

Allon 2001,

42-45

Dhp-GK

21 X ca. 500

multi¬

sheet

Dhp-GK

scribe

Dharmapada

Brough 1962,
18-19, Salomon
1999, 96-98”

RS 14

ca. 20 X ca. 30

single¬

sheet

RS scribe

part of

Anavataptagathd

Salomon 2008,

329-330

16 + 25

23 X ca. 43(?)

single-

sheet(?)

BL scribe 1,

BL scribe 2

part ot Dharmapada,
story sketches

Lenz 2003, 3-7

RS 5

26.8 X 27.6

single¬

sheet

RS scribe

four Samyuktdgama
sutras

Glass 2007,

72-73

RS19

20.9 X 17.2

single¬

sheet

RS scribe

one Samyuktdgama
sutra

Lee 2009, 3

BL5B

27 X 44.4

single¬

sheet

BL scribe 9

KhadgavisdnasOtra

Salomon 2000,

23-27

11 The preserved part of this scroll measures 159.8 cm in height (Salomon 2008, 84), and it can¬
not be ruled out that this represents most of its original size, which would make it the second of
a set of two scrolls, originally inscribed with the Anavataptagathd on one side only, with story
sketches added later on the empty spaces of at least the second scroll. This would provide a bet¬
ter match of scroll BL1 with the general pattern of the British Library Collection, in which most or
all of the scrolls appear to have fallen well short of 200 cm in length and where in all clear cases
only small amounts of material are missing from the tops of scrolls, but in the absence of positive
evidence for such a disposition of scroll BL 1 and pending further reconstructions of scrolls from
the British Library Collection, the editor’s proposal is tentatively followed here.

12 The dimensions given by Salomon and Lenz differ slightly. The former are followed here.

13 The empty top of the first sheet of this scroll is not included in any of the published plates.
The visible portion of this sheet is 40.6 cm high (Salomon 1999, 97), and its total height is here
estimated as 45 cm.

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

191

We have little information about the production process of Gandharan scrolls,
beyond what can be deduced from the available specimens. This is partly because
the use of scrolls died out in the century CE and the use of birch bark for other
manuscripts ceased in the 17* century CE (see section 6), partly because there
are few references to the preparation of birch-bark manuscripts in South Asian
literature.* The only external description is provided by the ll*-century Persian
scholar and traveler Alberuni who writes (Sachau 1888,1171):

In Central and Northern India people use the bark of the tuz tree [...]. It is called bhurja. They
take a piece one yard long and as broad as the outstretched fingers of the hand, or some¬
what less, and prepare it in various ways. They oil and polish it so as to make it hard and
smooth, and then they write on it. [...] Their letters, and whatever else they have to write,
they write on the bark of the tuz tree.

Each sheet of early Gandharan birch-bark manuscripts, whether in scroll or
other formats, was made from one single piece of bark as harvested from the
tree, and there was no process of laminating several pieces to form a sheet. For
the palm-leaf-inspired pothi format, this had already been observed by Hoernle
1893-1912, xix, who speaks of “several layers of periderm” (i.e., a feature of the
natural anatomy of the bark), and it was further demonstrated by Kaye 1927,10,
who observed that the same lenticels are visible on the recto and on the verso of
the Bakhshali manuscript.It was confirmed by the examination of birch-bark
manuscript fragments from Bamiyan (7* century CE; Yamauchi 2009, 24, 35-36)
as well as of folio 364 of the digit Dlrghagama manuscript (8* or 9* century CE;
Jinkyoung Choi, personal communication). That the same holds true of the two
main types of Gandharan scroll is apparent from an examination of the lower
edge of the short-format scroll RS 5 (Glass 2007, pi. 1 and 2) and of the long-format
scroll Dhp-G"^ (Brough 1962, pi. XIII and XIV). The natural layers of birch bark do,
however, tend to separate as the bark ages, and the application of oil described

14 Urvasi’s letter is written, on the spur of the moment, on bark torn straight from the tree,
but this cannot be indicative of the general procedure. The available specimens all show that
birch-bark manuscripts were very carefully planned and constructed, and from the living inner
bark rather than from the inferior outermost layers of bark shed by the tree. The passage in the
Mdkandikavadana provides more detail, but the purpose of some of the materials listed there -
particularly the oil and cotton - remains unclear.

15 The statement in Sander 1968, 28 (“mehrer[e] dunn[e], aufeinandergeklebte Schichten”) ap¬
pears to be based on a misunderstanding of Hoernle’s description. The formulation in Salomon
1999, 107 (“component layers or laminations”) is not clear, but that in Salomon 2000, 23-24
(“only two laminated layers [...] written on a single, unusually large and fine piece of bark”) sug¬
gests a correct understanding of the situation. For the sake of clarity, the terms ‘lamination’ and
‘laminated’ should be avoided in future discussions of birch-bark manuscripts.

192

Stefan Baums

by Alberuni (and possibly alluded to in the Mdkandikavaddna) may partly serve
to introduce additional, more permanent adhesive between the layers of the
bark (cf. Yamauchi 2009, 48-49 for a similar experimental procedure applied in
modern conservation). Another effect of the oil may have been an increased capa¬
bility of the bark surface to attract and retain ink particles.

The polishing of the sheets mentioned by Alberuni also appears to have
improved the suitability of the bark surface for writing. Yamauchi 2009, 27-28
reports that lenticels are slightly dented on the outer surface of the birch bark
and slightly raised on the inner surface, and since in Alberuni’s time birch-bark
sheets were regularly inscribed on both sides, it would have been desirable to
level the protruding ends of the lenticels. This leveling had less positive effect
on embedded wooden tissue, and these areas remained difficult to write on (see
section 4). Yet another possible treatment of the bark surface was suggested by
the analysis of seventh-century birch-bark fragments from Bamiyan which found
possible traces of yellow pigment (Yamauchi 2009, 4, 23, 36) although no rem¬
nants of coloring were visible on the bark. None of these methods of bark prepa¬
ration (oiling, polishing and coloring) should be uncritically projected back by
more than five hundred years onto the early Gandharan scroll tradition, but they
do suggest what to look for when physical analyses of the scrolls are carried out.

According to Alberuni, the strips of bark harvested from the trees measured
approximately 25 cm in width and 100 cm in height. Since removal of the inner bark
interrupts the conveyance of water and nutrients inside the tree, the maximum
width of the harvested strip (corresponding to approximately one quarter of the
circumference of a full-grown birch tree) was probably at least partly determined
by the need to keep the tree alive for future use. Another influence will have been
the target width of the finished sheets, which in turn was conditioned by ease of
use as well as the historical origin of the Gandharan scroll format (see section 6).
The height of the harvested strip would appear to be the maximum that could
be conveniently removed without the help of a ladder (since the very foot of the
tree where the stem widens into the root system would not have yielded suitable
bark). If the same procedure was followed in early Gandhara, then the sheets for
the short-format scrolls were simply derived by cutting the harvested and pre¬
pared strip into three or four pieces.

The construction of the long-format scrolls (called pustaka; Falk 1993, 305-
306, Salomon 1999, 87) was considerably more complicated. The easiest way to
form a scroll that is 250 cm (BL 1) or 500 cm (Dhp-G"^) high would seem to be
the vertical joining of three, four or five of the harvested bark strips, and this
is what Senart 1898, 199 and Hoernle 1900, 125-126 (the latter with reference
to Alberuni’s description) suggested for scroll Dhp-G^ (the only Gandharan
scroll known at the time) whose preserved sections happen to be ca. 118.8 cm.

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

193

48.9 cm and 131.4 cm high. Kaye 1927,10, on the other hand, was familiar with the
construction of Egyptian papyrus scrolls from individual sheets that are glued
together (cf. section 6) and suggested a similar construction for scroll Dhp-G^,
but could not see any positive evidence for this in Senart’s plates. Janert 1955/56,
73 (referring to Hoernle but unaware of Kaye) reverted to the idea that harvested
birch-bark strips were used in their full size, but goes even further and suggests
that scrolls were made from one single piece of bark, which in view of the great
height of the Khotan Dharmapada scroll was quite implausible. Brough 1962,
18-19 does not address the question of component sheets in his brief remarks on
scroll construction.

The discovery of the twenty-eight Gandharan scrolls that are now preserved
in the British Library (approximately half of which belong to the long-format type)
finally provided new evidence to decide the question and prompted Salomon
1999, 92-98 to reexamine scroll Dhp-G*^. As it turns out, all long-format scrolls
now known, including scroll Dhp-G"^, are made from several sheets that are verti¬
cally attached to each other in the manner described below. The orientation of
each sheet within the scroll is such that the lenticels are parallel to the upper
and lower end of the scroll and perpendicular to its left and right margin, thus
either following the orientation in which the bark was attached to the birch tree,
turning it upside down or a combination of both possibilities. As a consequence,
the direction in which the scroll is folded (from bottom to top) is perpendicular
to the bark’s natural curvature around the tree trunk (left and right), and it is
possible that this choice was made in order to ensure that the scroll would lie flat
during use.

In the five clear cases of long-format scrolls in this study, the heights of the
component sheets range from an exceptionally short 13.1 cm through 17.5 cm up
to 49 cm and thus correspond very closely to the range of heights of the short-
format scrolls (17.2 cm to 44 cm). In contrast with this, the widths of the compo¬
nent sheets (and of the long-format scrolls that they build) range from 14 cm to
21 cm and are thus considerably narrower than the widths of the short-format
scrolls (ca. 20 cm to 27 cm; see Table 3). For production of the Khotan Dharma¬
pada scroll, the individual sheets were arranged in decreasing order of height
from the top to the bottom of the scroll (looking at the recto), and the same may
be true of scroll BL1 (Salomon 2009,86; Figure 3). In scroll BL12 + 14, on the other
hand, the bottommost sheet is larger then the next sheet up (looking at the recto),
and the two bottom sheets of scroll BL 13 are exactly equal in size. The same is
true of the three bottom sheets of scroll BL 9, to the top of which is joined at least
one shorter sheet. The sequences of equally-sized sheets in scrolls BL 9 and BL 13
were probably produced either by folding the harvested strip over on itself or by
superimposing roughly cut sheets, and then trimming them to the same size with

194

Stefan Baums

BL9 BL 13

□

RS 19

BL 16-f25

R‘

Dhp-C^ BL 5B

Fig- 3: Dimensions, construction and text layout often Gandharan scrolls. (Curved lines indicate
the direction of overlap of sheets. Dotted lines mark reconstructed portions of scrolls. Dark grey
shading is used for the original texts of scrolls, light grey for secondary texts added to them.)

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

195

a knife, as suggested by evidence from the long-format scroll LC. This scroll has
two large square holes, about four millimeters in diameter, in the same relative
position just above a join on its first and second preserved sheets. The text of the
scroll avoids these holes (see section 4), showing that the damage was caused
prior to inscribing. The corresponding positions of the holes make it most likely
that they were caused by accidental piercing with a pointed object - maybe a
knife - while they were superimposed for cutting to the same size. The surround¬
ing bark indicates that the object was twisted counterclockwise (looking at the
recto) while penetrating the sheets.

Tab. 3: Sheet sizes of five long-format Gandharan scrolls

Width of sheets (cm)

Heights of sheets (cm)

BL9

19.8, 25.2, 25.2, 25

BL13

27, 29

BLl

15.1

49, 36, 30

BL12 + 14

ca. 15.5

23.5, 27

Dhp-G'<

ca. 45, 46.9 ... 23.5, 20.4, 20, 23.1, 17.5, 13.1

All known long-format scrolls are incomplete, but the original heights of two of
them (BL 1 and Dhp-G^) can be calculated with a fair degree of accuracy from
their content, and the original number of sheets used in their construction can
thus be estimated. Salomon 1999,96-97 presented an estimate for Dhp-G’^ on the
basis of the schematic representation of the scroll in Brough 1962,11, not realizing
that this drawing does not accurately represent the proportions of the scroll (see
Figure 3), and that the heights of its two missing portions have been additionally
reduced to fit the drawing onto the page. Assuming with Brough that the first gap
in the preserved scroll (between fragments B and A) is somewhat larger than the
second (between fragments A and C), and assuming with Salomon that the size of
sheets decreased regularly from the top to the bottom of the scroll, an additional
two sheets need to be reconstructed between Salomon’s sheets 3 and 4, and one
additional sheet between sheets 5 and 6. The total number of sheets making up
the scroll is thus likely to have been fifteen. A similar estimate can be made for
scroll BL 1 on the assumption that the preserved portion of the scroll represents
about one half of its original length (Salomon 2008, 84; but see note on Table 2
and compare Figure 3). The complete scroll would then have been made from six
sheets.

Stefan Baums

196 -

As in Egyptian papyrus scrolls (see section 6), the sheets of Gandharan birch-
bark scrolls are primarily joined to each other by an undetermined type of glue
which is applied to the bottom two or three centimeters of one side of one sheet
to paste it onto or under the top of the following sheet. Following papyrological
practice (Porten 1979, 78), these areas of a scroll where one sheet is joined to the
next will be referred to as joins. Sometimes excessive application of glue appears
to have led to a crinkled surface in the finished scroll (Salomon 1999, 96). In the
current condition of many Gandharan scrolls, the glue has lost its adhesive power
and sheets have become separated (cf. Salomon 1999, 93 fig. 9). To avoid such
separation during the anticipated lifetime of scrolls, their joins were often rein¬
forced with threads stitched across them. Three patterns of stitching have been
observed so far: (1) In the scroll Dhp-G’^, two short vertical lines of stitches cross
the join. These lines are between 1.7 cm and 3.5 cm long and between 3.5 and
6.5 cm distant from the outer margins of the scroll (Salomon 1999, 96; Figure 4).
In his first description of these join-reinforcing stitches, Salomon suggested they
were peculiar to scroll Dhp-G’^ and that no reinforcements were used in the BL
scrolls, but closer examination has since revealed join-reinforcing stitches in
all four long-format scrolls described in this article as well as in other long-for¬
mat scrolls. (2) In scrolls BL 1, BL 9, BL 12 -i-14 and BL 13, a single line of stitches
ca. 2.5 cm in length crosses each join in its horizontal center. Although the thread
has disintegrated in these scrolls, the needle holes through which it passed are
clearly visible on inspection (Allon 2001, pi. 6, Salomon 2008, 86). Only the joins
between the first and second preserved sheets of BL 9 (fourth and fifth from the
bottom) and BL 13 (second and third from the bottom) lack visible stitch marks,
and it is possible that these two pairs of sheet were irregularly joined by glue only
(Baums 2009,68). Together with the fact that the sheets below the unstitched joins
in these scrolls are equally-sized, whereas the ones above are observably (BL 9)
or potentially (BL 13) of different sizes (see above), this suggests that in these two

Fig. 4: Margin threads and join-reinforcing threads in scroll Dhp-C^ (Senart 1898, pi. III).

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

197

cases pre-existing scrolls of three and two sheets were secondarily extended by
the addition of at least one more sheet at their top. (3) In the unpublished scroll
BL 15, the join-reinforcing stitches take the form of a broad zig-zag pattern from
the left to the right margin in which the individual lines of the zig-zag are ca. 2 cm
long and meet each other at right angles (see, e.g., frame 30; Figure 5). In scroll
LC, a narrower zig-zag pattern in which the lines meet each other at sixty-degree
angles similarly follows the join.^*’

Fig. 5: Join-reinforcing thread (needle holes) in scroll BL15 (courtesy of The British Library
Board).

In some scrolls the overlapping of the individual sheets follows a single consistent
pattern (Figure 3). Throughout the preserved portions of scrolls BL 9 and Dhp-G^,
of any pair of sheets the one that is closer to the top of the scroll (looking at its
recto) is glued and stitched onto the one that is closer to the bottom. This pattern
appears to be reversed in scroll BL 12 + 14, where the three preserved sheets are
joined so that of any pair the lower one (looking at the recto) lies on top of the
higher one, and the same may be true of scroll BL 13 (even though it forms a set
with scroll BL 9) where, however, the direction of overlap of the first and second
sheets could not be determined with certainty.

The long format is further characterized by threads stitched along the left
and right margins, all the way from the top to the bottom of a scroll, at a distance
of 0.5 to 1.0 cm from the edge of the bark. These threads are mostly preserved in
scroll Dhp-G^^ (Figure 4). In the long-format BL scrolls they have disintegrated
except for small remnants, but needle holes attest to their presence where the
margin itself is preserved. Most likely the purpose of these margin threads was to
increase the vertical cohesion of the scroll (Salomon 1999, 94). Frequent folding
of a scroll would result in horizontal cracks and eventually in the separation of

16 The rightmost part of one of the joins of scroll BC 2 has been additionally reinforced by a patch
of birch bark glued over its verso (Strauch 2008,107), but this isolated case is best regarded as an
improvised repair of a specific problem, not as an additional type of join reinforcement.

198

Stefan Baums

the bark into horizontal strips. The margin threads would slow down this process
by preventing vertical overextension of the scroll, and if the bark did separate
along a horizontal crack the threads would still provide a minimal amount of ver¬
tical cohesion and prevent the scroll from splitting altogether. One negative con¬
sequence of sewing threads dovm the margins was the resulting perforation that
led to a tendency for the left and right edges of scrolls to break off. The benefit of
increased vertical cohesion appears to have outweighed the drawback of weak¬
ened margins during the lifetime of the scrolls, but in the centuries since their
disposal some scrolls (notably the BL scrolls) have suffered a complete disinte¬
gration of their margin threads, followed by a destruction of their edges along the
exposed perforation. While characteristic of the long format, margin stitching in
some rare cases also occurs in short-format scrolls. The only clear examples are
scroll BL 5B, the exceptionally long short-format scroll RS 12 and probably also
scroll BL 16 -i- 25 (see section 4 below). The unique scroll BL 3A has strips of what
appears to be coarse birch bark, approximately 1.5 cm in vddth, pasted dovm the
recto and verso of the preserved left margin and taking the place of margin stitch¬
ing (not noted by the editor, but clearly visible in Lenz 2003, fig. 18-19 and Lenz
2010, pi. 22-25). It is uncertain whether this scroll belongs to the long or short
format.

There is no evidence that a roller (such as a cylindrical piece of wood) was
attached to the bottom of any of the long-format scrolls. Brough 1962, 12 sug¬
gested that “a manuscript of birch-bark would suffer less in being used if it were
rolled than it would if folded” and that “[i]f a roll was the original intention, it
must be assumed that it was wound round a cylinder, possibly of wood, since
the end of [fragment] N, which would have been the innermost part, shows no
signs of the tight folding which is characteristic of most paper strips which have
been rolled without a centre-piece.” In fact, however, the bottom of scroll Dhp-G^
shows exactly the kind of damage that would be caused by folding without a
roller and that occurs frequently among the BL scrolls: a piece corresponding to
two strips of the folded-up scroll has broken off along horizontal cracks, leaving
a gap one strip from the very end of the scroll. Observing this, Salomon 1999,101
still attempted to use it as an argument in favor of the original presence of a roller
since “[tjhis damage could have been inflicted when the scroll was separated
from such a rolling cylinder to which it had been pasted or otherwise attached.”
The detached fragments are, however, preserved and can be inspected on plates
IV and XVIII of Brough 1962, where their recto is empty and their verso carries
the partial lines numbered 367-370. The surface of the recto does not show any
irregularity or damage that might have been caused by attachment to a roller, but
the left-hand portion does display the kind of horizontal crack that is indicative
of tight folding and that, one strip up and down, did lead to the detachment of

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

199

these fragments. The other piece of evidence that Salomon adduced in favor of
the use of rollers are tvyo small holes near the bottom of scroll BL 12 +14. But in
the description of Allon 2001, 44, “[t]he hole on the left side of the recto is about
2.5 cm from the original bottom margin of the manuscript, and the hole on the
right is about 1.4 cm from the bottom,” vyhereas one vyould expect them to be at
the same height if they vyere caused by pins attaching the bottom of the scroll to a
roller. Allon continues to remark that if they were caused by such pins, then “the
bark would have been pinned onto the roller from the verso side, which formed
the original outside of the scroll.” This would have subverted the purpose of a
roller since the scroll, rolled up with its recto facing the inside (see section 5),
could then only have gone around the roller after a very sharp crease at the point
of attachment which would have led to the speedy separation of the roller itself.
The available evidence thus indicates that no rollers were attached to the bottoms
of Gandharan scrolls.

4 Inscribing

The principal writing utensils available in Gandhara and suitable for birch bark
were pens (made from reeds or similar material) and brushes (Biihler 1896, 92,
Janert 1955/56, 87, Sander 1968,35-36). Many Gandharan manuscripts show signs
of having been written with a hollow pen whose nib was split to conduct ink from
the inside to the tip and angled to accommodate the handedness of the scribe:
split letter strokes where the ink ran low and varying widths of strokes depend¬
ing on their direction (Glass 2000, 28-30). The use of pens in Gandhara is further
indicated by two replica copper pens found at Taxila (Marshall 1951, II598). It is
safe to assume that pens were the regular writing utensil, but the occasional use
of brushes cannot be ruled out.

The ink used for Gandharan manuscripts is black and presumably soot-based
(notwithstanding Kalidasa’s poetic dhdtumsa; section 3). Janert 1955/56, 87-96
lists various ink recipes used in ancient and medieval India and summarizes the
report of Biihler 1877,30 according to which the ink used for later Kashmiri birch-
bark manuscripts was made from burnt almonds boiled in cow urine, which in
combination with birch bark produced waterproof writing. The recipe of early
Gandharan ink will remain unknown until a detailed analysis is carried out on a
sample of the material. Concerning the water resistance of the later Kashmiri ink,
we observe that there are no clear cases of ink erasure due to water damage in the
early Gandharan manuscript material, with the possible exception of scroll BC13,
one side of which contains an area of faded writing that by its shape suggests the

200

Stefan Baums

spread of a liquid. A scribal method of erasing an erroneous aksara consists in
smudging it out (Glass 2000,148), but since this type of erasure would be carried
out before the ink was dry it cannot be taken as a sign of water-soluble ink. The
only known palimpsests among Gandharan manuscripts are written on palm
leaf, and in these cases the application of another solvent than water cannot be
ruled out.

In the act of writing, scribes avoided uneven areas of the scroll, especially
embedded wooden tissue (cf. Salomon 2008, pi. 17), join-reinforcing threads and
the edges where sheets overlap with each other.The usual procedure for rough
spots in the bark is quite simply to skip them, but occasionally (e.g., on the recto
of scroll LC) they are marked with horizontal lines to show they have been left
empty on purpose. In some manuscripts, particularly the BC scrolls, the verso
of the scroll (corresponding to the inner side of the birch tree’s periderm) has a
much coarser texture than the recto, but this did not in and of itself prevent its
use for writing.

In most long-format and some short-format scrolls, the horizontal delimi¬
tation of the text area was provided by the threads running down the left and
right margins. Two of the BC scrolls (long-format BC 3 and short-format BC 5) do
not feature margin threads, but have ink lines drawn down the margins where a
thread would have run, illustrating how margin threads had come to be perceived
as an integral part of text layout (Strauch 2008, 107).^® The sculpture shown in
Figure 6 goes to the length of reproducing the margin threads or correspond¬
ing ink lines of two scrolls in stone, further illustrating their importance for the
Gandharan scroll format. Vertically, the text area can in principle extend all the
way to the bottom of the writing surface, but it may stop a little short if the end
of a textual subdivision occurs just before the bottom of the scroll (e.g., in long-
format BL 1, BL 12 +14 and Dhp-G'^ and short-format BL SB). The very top of a
scroll is often left empty (for instance in long-format Dhp-G^ and short-format BC
8), presumably to protect the inscribed part when the scroll was folded up. Within

17 Salomon 1999, 96 uses the scribal avoidance of join-reinforcing threads and sheet edges to
argue against Brough 1962,13 that the entire length of a long-format scroll was ready-made be¬
fore a scribe commenced his work, and that the scribe either commissioned a complete scroll of
the size he thought appropriate or chose from a variety of differently-sized ready-made scrolls.
While the careful and regular construction of most scrolls does suggest professional manufacture
on a large scale, the features of some scrolls, such as the lack of reinforcing threads and smaller
sheets in the upper part of scrolls BL 9 and BL 13 and the changing direction of sheet overlap in
scroll BL 1, still indicate a certain element of improvisation in their manufacture, whether by a
specialized scroll maker or by a scribe.

18 The same type of development occurred in Central Asian paper manuscripts where painted
circles took the place of string holes in earlier palm-leaf manuscripts.

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

201

the text area, the scribe fills lines from right to left (the writing direction of the
Kharosthi script) proceeding from the top of the recto to the bottom. If he wishes
to continue his text on the verso of the scroll, he flips the scroll over vertically and
begins to fill the verso from the same end (the innermost part of the folded-up
scroll), proceeding from there back towards that end from which he started to
fill the recto (the outermost part of the folded-up scroll). In one case (scroll BC
16), the scribe reached the end of the verso before he had completed his text, and
proceeded to add two more lines in the right margin (with the feet of letters point¬
ing towards the right edge of the scroll) and one more line in the top margin (with
the feet pointing towards the top edge); the intended reading order of these three

Fig- 6: Three monks with scrolls (Taddel 1983, pi. Mb).

202

Stefan Baums

lines has not yet been determined, and it cannot be ruled out that more text was
added to the lost left margin of the verso. In general, the horizontal orientation
of lines is maintained quite accurately, but some of the more cursive hands (e.g.,
BL scribe 2 and the RS scribe) introduce a downward slant from the beginning
(right side) to the end (left side) of the line. This slant is particularly distinct in
short-format scrolls, presumably because they could be more easily rotated under
writing than long-format scrolls.

In most Gandharan scrolls, the text block is structured by punctuation
marks and word spacing. The former typically occur at two different levels, with
small dots indicating lower-level phrase units and larger circular designs indi¬
cating paragraph- or chapter-level divisions. Some scrolls (BL 9, BL 13, BL 28)
additionally mark the end of a paragraph or chapter by placing a similar design
in the right-hand margin of the manuscript between the margin thread and
the edge of the surface (Baums 2009, 70, 105-106). For the same purpose, the
Dhp-G’^ scribe placed a horizontal line of abstract geometric shapes under the
end of each chapter, starting from the right edge of the text block or in the right
margin, and extending between one quarter and one half of the width of the text
block leftwards (cf. Brough 1962, pi. XV). Word spacing is used especially with
verse texts, which are typically laid out so that the four quarters of a stanza fill
one line and are separated by spaces (Falk 1993, 316-317; cf. Brough 1962, pi. I).
Stanzas in verse texts and paragraphs in prose texts can also be numbered, with
the number sign following the unit in question. The Dhp-G^ scribe instead noted
the number of verses in each chapter at its end (after the final punctuation mark
or to the left of the horizontal line of abstract shapes). The very end of a text is
sometimes marked with the lifelike drawing of a flower or a stupa. In one special
case (Figure 7), the flower occurs at the bottom of the recto of a scroll (BL 13), but
the text actually continues on the verso with two more paragraphs. It is possible

Fig. 7: End-of-text mark in scroll BL 13 (Baums 2009, pi. 21).

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

203

that the part on the verso represents a secondary extension of this text, consist¬
ing of a loosely joined sequence of explanations of a selection of Buddhist verses.

Where the end of a text is preserved it does not usually carry any additional
information, such as a text title or the name of a scribe or owner. The ‘Split’ Col¬
lection does, however, include one scroll (SC 5) that preserves parts of two chap¬
ters from a Pmjndpdmmitd and a detached fragment that appears to be from the
bottom of a sheet and contains the following two lines (Falk 2011,23, pi. 8):

padhamage postage pranaparamidae budhamitra ///

idrasavasa sadhaviharisa imena ca kusalamulena sarvasatvana matrapitra ///

The first line specifies the content of this scroll as “the first book of the
Pmjndpdmmitd of Budhamitra,” referring either to the scribe or to the owner of
the manuscript. After a stretch of lost text, the second line continues “dwelling
together with Idrasrava” - probably a further specification of Budhamitra - and
adds “by this root of good, for all beings, for mother and father” before breaking
off.

This note on the Pmjndpdmmitd manuscript sheds light on the interpretation
of another fragment of birch bark in the British Library collection (BL 3B) that
appears to belong to the end of a text written by the same scribe as scrolls BL 7,
BL 9, BL 13 and BL 18 (Salomon 1999, 40-42, Baums 2009, 609-611). The lines in
question, which occur just above a partially preserved join and skip over a cen¬
tered join-reinforcing thread, read as follows:

+ + [t]. a i di navodasa *

+ + + + [ge] postag (*e) gasaje] pacavisadi 20 41 saghasravasa samanasa

The first line ends with the number word ‘nineteen’ which probably refers either
to the content or to the size of the preceding last chapter of the text. The second
line appears to contain information about the text as a whole. It starts with an
expression in the locative case containing the word ‘book’ modified by a lost attri¬
bute - probably a numeral as on scroll SC 5. The word gasae ‘verses’ is a feminine
nominative plural and thus probably constitutes the subject of the statement, fol¬
lowed by the number word ‘twenty-five’ (repeated in number signs) that appears
to be its attribute. This leaves an ambiguous reference to the monk Saghasrava in
the genitive singular; it could mark him as the composer of the verses or the com¬
mentary on them or, more likely, as the scribe or owner of the manuscript. The
term ‘colophon’ has been used for the text-final statements on these fragments.
They probably occupied the typical position of a colophon at the end of a text,
and at least the text-final statement of the Pmjndpdmmitd appears to share with

204

Stefan Baums

the later and more elaborate Gilgit colophons a reference to the beneficiaries of
the merit that accrues from the production of the manuscript (von Hiniiber 1980,
50).

The information on scroll fragment BL 3B is similar to that in the introductory
line (possibly a verse) of scroll Dhp-G’^;

budhavarmasa samanasa budhanadisardhavayarisa ida dharmapadasa postaka dharma-

sravena likhida arani

Brough (1962, xx-xxii, 119,177 (followed by Salomon 1999,40-42)) read the third
word from the end as dharmuyane and took it as a reference to the place where
the manuscript was copied, but the reproduction of this passage on his plate I
rather supports my interpretation as a personal name formed on the same pattern
as Idrasava in scroll SC 5 and Saghasrava in scroll fragment BL 3B. The Dhp-G^
line can then be unambiguously translated as: “This is the Dharmapada book of
the monk Budhavarma, dwelling together with Budhanadi; it has been written
by Dharmasrava in the monastery.” In contrast to SC 5 and BL 3B, Dhp-G^ thus
clearly distinguishes between owner and scribe. The Dharmapada introductory
verse differs from BL 3B in not providing a number of text units, a service that in
general always follows the text or part of a text in question.

Neither the text-final statement on scroll fragment BL 3B nor the introductory
statement on scroll Dhp-G’^ occupy a position that would have allowed them to
identify the content of the manuscript when it was folded up. Unless external
means were used to identify folded-up scrolls (such as tags or containers vdth
labels), the information would have to be provided on the only part of a scroll’s
surface that is visible in its folded-up state: the very end of the verso (on the other
side of the same sheet as the beginning of the recto). Unfortunately, this part is
only preserved in scroll Dhp-G^, and no photographs have ever been published of
the relevant portion of the manuscript (the verso of fragment 0). Until this desid¬
eratum is filled and the end of the verso of Dhp-G’^ is examined for the possible
presence of a line specifying the content of the scroll, we have at least one piece
of circumstantial evidence in the address line of the private letter on scroll BC 15
(Strauch 2008,127). The strip of bark bearing this address has become detached
from the rest of the scroll, but the empty vertical space preceding and following
the address shows that it was not directly adjacent to the body of the letter, and
the surface structure and width of the strip suggest that its position was indeed at
the very end of the verso so that it would have been visible on the outside of the

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

205

folded-up (and possibly sealed) letterd® This makes it likely that if the identifica¬
tion of a folded-up literary scroll was provided on the manuscript itself, then it
would also have occurred at the very end of the verso.

Almost always, a single scribe was responsible for the writing of a text, but
one exception exists in scroll LC which contains a single text, but where the recto
was written by one scribe and the verso by another.^” When a significant amount
of free space remained on a scroll, either because it was only inscribed on the
recto or because its text did not extend all the way to the bottom of the verso, a sec¬
ondary text was sometimes added at a later point by a different scribe (Figure 3).
Among the ten scrolls studied in this article, two different types of text combina¬
tion can be observed. The first is represented by scroll BL 13, where what appears
to be the final part of a multi-volume commentarial text occupies all of the recto
and in its present form (see above) extends 24 cm down the verso. It is followed
by a similar but distinct commentarial text that is written by another scribe. Here
the intention was clearly to write a sequel to the text that already existed on the
scroll. The second pattern is represented by scrolls BL 1, BL 12 +14 and BL 16 -i- 25.
In each of these, a Buddhist canonical text (two verse texts and one set of stitras)
is followed by a string of narrative sketches written in a very casual style by
two different scribes. It has not been possible to determine any relationship of
content between the primary texts of these scrolls and the narrative sketches,
and here the unused writing surface appears to have been repurposed for a new
task without reference to the text that the scroll already contained. In each of the
cases of reuse discussed so far, representing the habits of three different scribes,
the secondary text follows the primary text immediately, without any vertical
space and sometimes even finishing the last line of the primary text. A different
procedure can be observed in scroll BC 1, where a collection of canonical stitras
was evidently meant to occupy just the recto of the scroll, but where due to lack
of space the very last line of the text had to be written at the top of the verso. A
secondary magical text was then added to the verso of the manuscript, but in this
case only after a long vertical gap that apparently corresponds to one sheet of the
scroll (i.e., the secondary text appears to start on the second sheet of the verso).
Yet another arrangement occurs in scroll BC 9, where a scholastic text is added
on the verso of a scroll whose entire recto is occupied by a treatise on statecraft.

19 The surface structure of the strip containing the address line indicates that it was written on
the verso of the scroll, and the width of the strip places it at the very end of the preserved part of
the verso (Ingo Strauch, personal communication).

20 This situation is comparable to the larger-scale collaboration of scribes on the Gilgit
Dlrghdgama manuscript described in Melzer 2007, 68-77.

206

Stefan Baums

Summarizing these observations and surveying the known corpus of Gandharan

scrolls, the following patterns of scribal practice emerge:

1. Short texts such as letters (BC 15) and some stotras (BC 8 and BC 10) only
required one side of a short-format scroll to write dovm.

2. Prestige literature such as Buddhist canonical texts (BL1 and BL12 + 14), but
also the non-Buddhist treatise on statecraft (BC 9), tended to be vnritten only
on the recto of both short-format and long-format scrolls. Where the length of
such a text exceeded the available space, it could in principle be continued
on the rectos of further scrolls. No absolutely clear cases of such continuation
scrolls for prestige literature have yet been found, and it is possible that the
primary mode of transmission for this type of literature remained oral and
that the available manuscripts of complete texts or the beginnings of texts
served special purposes. On the other hand, BL 16 + 25 does appear to be a
continuation scroll, and BL 1 (see note on Table 2) may be another example.
An exception to the pattern is the work of the scribe of the Senior collection of
manuscripts, who produced both single- and double-sided scrolls of extracts
from canonical literature. Another exception is scroll Dhp-G'^ which probably
contained the entire text of the Dharmapada using both the recto and almost
half of the verso. Both of these exceptions date from the 2"'^ century CE (the
Senior scrolls certainly, scroll Dhp-G"^ probably) and are thus approximately
one hundred years younger than the other known manuscripts of canoni¬
cal texts. It is possible, but remains speculative, that they represent further
developments in two different directions; a greater reliance on written trans¬
mission on one hand, and an increased emphasis on ritual uses of manu¬
scripts on the other.

3. New literature including commentaries on canonical texts (BL 9, BL 13 and
BL 18), other scholastic treatises (BL 28), Mahayana stitras (BC 2) and stotras
(BL 5B), as well as casual texts such as story sketches (BL 2), could be written
on both sides of a scroll where needed and were demonstrably continued on
further scrolls when both sides of the initial scroll were filled (BL 9, BL 13 and
BL 18).

4. In addition, some forms of new literature (the scholastic treatise on BC 9) and
casual texts (the story sketches of the British Library Collection) would reuse
empty space on other manuscripts, and at least in the latter case without
reference to the original content of the scroll. One related property shared by
some new literature (BL 13) and casual texts (BL 4) is that a scribe could add
additional material to another scribe’s text (which is a different practice from
that in scroll LC, where a single preexisting text was divided between two
scribes to share labor or merit).

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

207

While the tendency for canonical texts to occur in partial manuscripts (especially
the beginnings of texts) indicates the continuation of a strong oral transmission,
the commentarial and scholastic literature shows clear signs of written transmis¬
sion in addition to oral features. The commentary in scrolls BL 7, BL 9, BL 13 and
BL18, for instance, contains misspellings based on the shape of Kharosthi letters
(such as the gotra name pamcariya <- *pamyaria for *pamsaria, and the techni¬
cal term drithisari for *drithiyan; Baums 2009,150, 326) besides representations
of dialect features (such as tida instead of Gandhari thida) that suggest that both
a written source and reading aloud or recitation played a role in the production
of the manuscript. The Sangitisutra commentary in scroll BL 15 contains another
clear example of written transmission in the section on the six vivadamula, where
part of the text has been omitted because the eye of a copyist or somebody reading
aloud skipped from the word drithi in one line of a source manuscript to the same
word in the next line.

A feature of the casual story sketches may also indicate the production of one
manuscript on the basis of another. Nine places on five different scrolls where
these sketches occur have interlinear notes stating likhidago ‘it has been written,’
likhidage aca avadane ‘this avadana has been written’ or variants thereof. In his
detailed discussion of these notes, Salomon 1999, 71-76 observed that they were
in another hand than the story sketches themselves, and he suggested that they
either represent the certification of a supervisor that the manuscript had been
produced correctly, or - more likely in view of the casual nature of the text - that
another scribe who had made copies from the manuscripts we have noted this fact
in his exemplars. Lenz 2003,108-110 argued for a variant of Salomon’s rejected
hypothesis in which the notations were added not by a supervisor of manuscript
production, but by a teacher in a classroom setting to confirm that his students
had written down their story sketches correctly. Revisiting the issue, Lenz 2010,
21-22 suggests instead that the notations may well have been written by the same
scribe as the story sketches themselves, but did not provide a reason why the
scribe should have annotated his own text in this way. Provisionally accepting
Lenz’s suggestion, Mark Allon proposes in personal communication one possible
explanation that attractively links the likhidago notes with the frequent injunc¬
tion vistare yasayupamano siyadi ‘it shall be expanded according to model’ at
the end of individual sketches (Lenz 2003, 85-91) and which also explains their
extreme succinctness and casual style: the story sketches may be neither class¬
room exercises nor the memory aids of a storyteller, but rather instructions for
the production of another manuscript in which the stories are told in full, and
the author of the sketches would have noted the completion of the full stories by
himself or by another scribe on his instruction sheet. While much unclarity thus
remains about the purpose of the likhidago notation, two of these three explana-

208

Stefan Baums

tions (by Salomon and Allon) involve hypotheses about manuscript production
in early Gandhara that could be confirmed by newt manuscript discoveries (either
of a direct copy of one of the sketches, or of a collection of full stories based on
the sketches).

5 Use and disposal

Beyond the scrolls themselves and the little that is knovm about their archeologi¬
cal context, the only evidence for howf they wrere used is provided by depictions in
Gandharan art (collected in Salomon 1999,103-104). The one most relevant for the
monastic context of our scrolls is a relief described by Taddei 1983, 338, showing
three monks seated around a table with open scrolls in their hands (Figure 6).
One of the monks joins the fingers of his right hand in a gesture that, as Taddei
suggests, may indicate that a debate (presumably about the content of the scrolls)

Fig- 8: Mustachioed man with scroii (Rahman 1993, pi. XLIa)

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

209

is underway. Another relief, from Shnaisha Gumbat in Swat (Rahman 1993, 95),
shows a mustachioed man seated under a tree, holding an open scroll in both
hands from which he reads while two young men listen attentively (Figure 8).
Rahman interprets the scene as “a government functionary reading out instruc¬
tions,” and while one may disagree with the specifics, here we do seem to witness
the use of a Gandharan scroll outside the monastic context. A third depiction
of scroll use is found on another relief from Swat that is now kept in the British
Museum (Tissot 1985,109, Kurita 1988-90, II fig. 859, Zwalf 1996,1232). It shows a
seated man with partially shaved head or close-fitting cap, holding an open scroll
in his left hand while looking up at a stooping woman approaching him with a
box-shaped object in her arms (Figure 9). This scene has received a wide range
of differing interpretations - a poet and his muse (imitating Greek models), the
schooling of the Bodhisattva or a scene from the Mahdummaggajataka involving
a young minister and a handmaiden - and pending new evidence it seems wisest
not to draw conclusions from any of these possibilities. Considering the ambigu¬
ous hairstyle of the man holding the scroll, both a monastic and a non-monastic
context seem possible.

Returning to our documents, we first observe that a large number of horizon¬
tal creases occurs in the bark of both short-format and long-format scrolls, and
that often these creases have led to breaks separating the bark into horizontal
strips. The distance between creases, and thus the height of strips into which
the bark has broken, increases regularly from the bottom of a scroll to the top. In
the long-format scroll BL 9, for instance, the next-to-bottommost strip is 1.7 cm
high, whereas the next-to-topmost preserved strip measures 4.2 cm in height.
This indicates that the scrolls were folded up from the bottom to the top, and
was confirmed during the opening of the scrolls in modern times. Textual study
combined with the observation of their opening showed that the scrolls were
folded up so that the recto faced the inside, a procedure that offered the best
protection for the textual content on the recto and the upper part of the verso.
This puts to rest various earlier theories about the Khotan Dharmapada scroll, in
particular the idea that it was folded up concertina-style, whose proponents mis¬
takenly considered a scroll with roller (not used in Gandhara; section 3) the only
probable type.^^ In one case (scroll BL 13), a horizontal crack caused by the par-

21 One apparent exception (scroll BL 21) was found folded up with its recto facing the outside,
but this seems to be a case of casually folding a worn-out scroll for disposal (Salomon 1999,
50-51).

22 “Une fois ecrits, [les feuillets] etaient replies sur eux-memes de fagon a se presenter sous
I’aspect de cahiers de 20 centimetres de long sur un hauteur de 4 centimetres et demi a 5 cen¬
timetres” (Senart 1898,199); “[mjost probably it was never intended that the manuscript should

210

Stefan Baums

Fig- 9: Man with scroll and woman (Tissot 1985, fig. 257).

ticularly tight folding at the bottom of the scroll was repaired using three small
strips of differently-colored birch bark (measuring 0.2 x 0.5 cm, 0.2 x 0.6 cm and
0.2 X 0.6 cm respectively) that have been glued over the crack in the same way that
we would use adhesive tape (Figure 7).

Once they were vertically folded into a tight, flat package, the short-format
scrolls were additionally folded in half horizontally. In some cases (e.g., scrolls
BC 8 and RS 24) this fold could be observed directly when the scrolls were found
(Khan/Khan 2004,12, Lenz 2003,4; Figure 10), and in their current open arrange¬
ment it can take the form of a vertical crease (less crisp than the horizontal ones)
running down the middle of the scroll or of an outright break caused during
modern opening. In other cases, the material along this crease had disintegrated
completely before the scrolls were deposited or in the centuries until their redis¬
covery. It is not immediately apparent why the short-format scrolls would be sub¬
jected to this additional folding since it does not make them significantly easier
to store or deposit and subjects the material to additional stress. I note for now
that the only known non-literary scroll (the letter BC 15) also appears to have been

be rolled up; possibly it was to be hung on a wall” (Kaye 1927,10); “[t]he present appearance of
some of the parts suggests that it was of the concertina-type, though it is possible that it was
originally intended to he a roll” (Brough 1962,12).

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

211

folded in this way since a noticeable crease runs down the middle of the sheet
and the outermost strip has broken in half, and will discuss this question further
in section 6. In contrast, none of the long-format scrolls in our sample have been
folded horizontally, presumably because the greater height of these scrolls and
consequently the greater thickness of the vertically folded-up package made an
additional horizontal folding difficult or impossible (cf. Salomon 1999, pi. 6).

Fig. 10: Short-format Gandharan scroll, folded up (Khan/Khan 2004, fig. 5).

Two of the short-format scrolls in the Bajaur collection (the letter BC 15 and the
stotra BC 10) have a hole, two or three millimeters in diameter, near the middle of
the right half of each bark strip. When these scrolls were folded up vertically the
holes would line up, and it therefore seems likely that they were caused by pierc¬
ing the scroll while it was folded-up vertically but not folded in half horizontally.
In the case of the letter, a string bearing a seal could have passed through it (Ingo
Strauch, personal communication), but it is not clear why the stotra scroll should
have received the same treatment.

The users of Gandharan scrolls would sometimes annotate the text of their
scrolls, but a meaningful discussion of this phenomenon will have to wait until
more texts have been edited and until palaeographic study makes it easier to dis¬
tinguish the hand of a user of a manuscript from that of its scribe. The reader
is referred to the discussion of the likhidago annotations in section 4 and will
note that even in this well-documented case the identity of the annotator remains

212

Stefan Baums

uncertain. A possible customization of a manuscript by its user, but just as likely
a feature provided by the scribe, are the margin marks indicating subsections of
a text (also discussed in section 4).

The information available about the day-to-day use of Gandharan birch-bark
scrolls is thus rather limited, and so is our knowtledge about the details of and
motivations behind the disposals that preserved some of these scrolls for posterity
(section 2). Because none of the manuscript discoveries were made in the course
of archeological excavation, information about their disposal is only available for
three collections; the BL collection, the RS collection and the BC collection. In his
discussion of the first of these, Salomon 1999,69-86 suggested that the deposit of
the BL scrolls is parallel to the Jewish custom of depositing worn-out manuscripts
(rather than destroying them) out of respect for their religious status. His argu¬
ment was based on the observation that many of the BL scrolls appear to have
been damaged and incomplete before their deposit. It is difficult to estimate how
much of the disintegration of birch bark is due to handling in antiquity rather
than environmental circumstances in the centuries that passed, but their used
status is borne out by the fact that one of them (BL 21) was casually folded up
inside out, and that in two cases (BL 3 and BL 5) parts of several unrelated scrolls
were folded up together. When the RS collection was discovered, it soon became
apparent that it differs from the BL collection in three important respects: all of
its manuscripts are written by the same scribe; they are in an excellent state of
preservation and were possibly unused when deposited; and they were discov¬
ered inside a pot with an inscription that in all respects (short of using a word for
‘relic’) conforms to the usual formula for relic establishments (Salomon 2003). On
the basis of these facts, Salomon 2009 argues that the scrolls of the RS collection
were custom-made for the purpose of ritual installation as dharma relic, and that
such an installation was successfully carried out, while maintaining and refining
his position that the BL collection represents a ritual burial of worn-out texts. He
supports his argument with new archeological data reported in Tarzi 2005 for
Buddhist monastic sites around Hadda in Afghanistan. These finds revealed two
relevant patterns of use for clay pots such as the ones that contained the BL and
RS scrolls: on one hand, they were used as funerary urns and buried outside the
western and southern walls of a monastery; on the other, they were used as outer
containers for reliquaries and placed within small stone chambers in stupas.

While in the light of all available evidence, it does seem likely that the Senior
scrolls constitute a dharma-relic deposit, whether or not they saw prior use, the
case is less clear for the BL scrolls. Their container does not carry any reference
to the purpose of the deposit, and the fact that similar containers were used for
human burials at Hadda does not necessarily mean that the disposal of these
worn-out scrolls was also conceptualized as a burial. We will be right in regard-

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

213

ing it as a respectful disposal, whether intended to be permanent or temporary,
but lack the data to deduce much beyond this main fact.^^ Coming to the third
major deposit of Gandharan scrolls, the Bajaur collection, we cannot even be sure
whether these manuscripts were in fact deposited in a formal sense. They were
reported to have been found in a small stone chamber or box resembling the one
that at Hadda contained a clay pot with reliquary, and on this basis Salomon
2009,28-29 suggested that they like the RS scrolls might represent dharma relics.
On the other hand, no pot or other object related to relic establishments were
reported in connection with the Bajaur material; in contrast to the RS collection it
contains a variety of textual genres on scrolls that do show signs of handling and
use; and in contrast to both the BL and the RS collection, the Bajaur collection
contains one clearly non-Buddhist text (the letter BC 15).^'* While we cannot rule
out that this one unrelated text slipped into a dharma-relic establishment by acci¬
dent, the overall picture remains as inconclusive as with the BL collection, and
we cannot rule out either that the Bajaur collection was simply part of a monastic
library, either in its regular place of storage or hidden away, that was left behind
when the monastery was abandoned (Strauch 2008,104-105).^^

6 Origin and survival

Discussions of the origin of the Gandharan scroll format (most recently Jager 2006,
189) have been almost entirely restricted to comparisons with Greek and Chinese
scrolls, but the connection of either of these two traditions with Gandhara faces
serious historical problems. While we have direct documentary evidence for a
flourishing use of Gandharan scrolls in the 1®* century CE and possibly also in
the century BCE, the existence of two Gandharan sites with Asokan inscrip-

23 A cautionary tale is presented by the private letters from Hermopolis discussed below: they
were found in a sealed jar in a necropolis for the ibis bird, among thousands of other jars con¬
taining ibis mummies, and no rationale for this kind of disposal of secular and ephemeral docu¬
ments is apparent (Kraeling 1953,18, Bresciani/Kamil 1966, Fitzmyer 1981, 29).

24 The treatise on statecraft (BC 9) is also not a Buddhist text, but in this case the secondary text
on the scroll - a Buddhist scholastic treatise - would have warranted its inclusion in a dharma-
relic deposit.

25 In principle, other types of ritual deposit than burial and relic establishment also need to be
taken into consideration, as illustrated by a recent discovery in Bamiyan. In the course of con¬
servation work on the remains of the eastern giant Buddha statue, twenty small manuscript frag¬
ments were found that had been deposited in a metal container inside the statue. They contain
part of the pratltyasamutpdda formula and provide first evidence from South Asia for the custom
of depositing manuscripts in statues (Matsuda 2009, 8).

214

Stefan Baums

tions using the local script Kharosthi - whereas Asoka’s inscriptions in the rest of
South Asia use Brahmi (von Hiniiber 1990,55) - indicates that a local Gandharan
manuscript tradition existed already in the middle of the 3'^'* century BCE. At this
point in time, Greek colonies had been established in Bactria, but another century
would pass before Gandhara was fully incorporated into the Greek sphere of
influence, and direct contacts between Gandhara and China are even less likely
at this early date.

Also in terms of format, Greek and Chinese scrolls differ markedly from the
two Gandharan formats in that they are written and read in horizontal orienta¬
tion, with vertical lines progressing from right to left in the Chinese case and hori¬
zontal lines arranged in columns in the Greek case. If either of them had served
as model for the Gandharan scrolls, it would be hard to explain why the latter
should have undergone such a radical change in format. Previous discussions
of Gandharan scrolls and their origin also suffered from an excessive focus on
the long-format type. This was initially due to the fact that scroll Dhp-G'^ was the
only available specimen, but even after the discovery of the BL collection, the
impression that the long format was more widely used and characteristic for the
tradition persisted (Salomon 1999, 98). The picture changed radically with the
RS collection which consists almost entirely of short-format scrolls, and vdth the
Bajaur collection which consists in equal parts of short- and long-format scrolls,
and as argued in footnote 5 even the BL collection contains more examples of the
short format than was apparent. This new-found preponderance of short-format
scrolls further weakens any connection with the Greek and Chinese scroll tradi¬
tions, and it suggests that the short-format scrolls played a more central role in
the development of the Gandharan tradition than previously thought.

A complete reevaluation of the origin of the Gandharan scroll format is thus
needed, and the first question is whether any other ancient manuscript culture
was in contact vdth Gandhara and could have been instrumental in the develop¬
ment of the Gandharan tradition. The most obvious candidate is the Achaemenid
empire which ruled Gandhara from the to the 4* century BCE. It has long
been agreed that Kharosthi - the writing system used in Gandharan inscriptions
and manuscripts - is a derivative of the Aramaic script used in the administra¬
tion of the Achaemenid empire (von Hiniiber 1990, 55, Falk 1993, 92-99), and if
the Aramaic scribal tradition provided the graphical raw material for Gandharan
manuscript culture, then its influence may very well also have extended to the
physical support of texts - the format, construction and use of manuscripts - and
it is surprising that this possibility has so far received no discussion at all.

Our earliest evidence for Aramaic scribal practice are Assyrian bas-reliefs of
the 8* and 7* centuries BCE, depicting the recording of plunder (Dougherty 1928,
129-133, Hyatt 1943, 73, Lemaire 1985,119; Figure 11). These records were kept in

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

215

duplicate, on clay tablets in cuneiform script and on parchment or papyrus man¬
uscripts in Aramaic script. In these reliefs, the Aramaic scribe is shown standing
up, with a pen in one hand and a flexible sheet or scroll, curling up at the bottom,
in his other hand. Lemaire 1985,119-122 collects the evidence for the material of
Aramaic manuscripts and suggests that leather was used where special durabil¬
ity was called for (e.g., in the Achaemenid royal archives, and thus in the records
of plunder), but that papyrus - where available - was the more common writing
material for other purposes (including letters and private contracts).^*’

Fig. 11: Aramaic scribe with scroll In Assyrian relief (Hyatt 19A3, fig. 5).

Documentary evidence for the Achaemenid Aramaic scribal tradition is available
from the 5‘*' and centuries BCE. The total known corpus includes about 150
documents and consists of the following major manuscript deposits;

1. Approximately one hundred contracts, letters and other documents on
papyrus from the archive of a Jewish military colony in Elephantine at the
southern border of Egypt. The bulk of these was published in Sayce 1906,
Sachau 1911 and Cowley 1923; Kraeling 1953 added seventeen documents.

26 Haran 1982 similarly argues that papyrus was the common writing material in Israel until
about the S* century BCE, when the beginning canonization of Biblical literature in the Second
Temple period led to the preferred use of parchment for scriptural texts. Hicks 1983 acknowl¬
edges the existence of both papyrus and parchment manuscripts in early Israel, but suggests the
texts that came to constitute the Old Testament may have been written on parchment from the
beginning.

216

Stefan Baums

2. Five private letters on papyrus sent from northern Egypt to Hermopolis in
central Egypt, where they were discovered inside a jar in a necropolis for the
ibis bird (Bresciani/Kamil 1966).

3. Thirteen letters on parchment sent by Arsham, the satrap of Egypt, from Susa
to his local governor (Driver 1954).

4. Thirty official letters, lists of provisions and records of debt, probably from
the archive of the satrap of Bactria, written on parchment, and all but one
dating to the 4‘^ century BCE (Shaked 2004, Naveh/Shaked 2012).

Within the Achaemenid empire, letters such as those of the satrap Arsham were
conveyed over great distances by a postal system of highways, horses and relay
stations that was subsequently adopted by Alexander the Great (Westermann
1928, 375-376). In the 4* century BCE, Alexander’s general Nearchus reported
that in Gandhara letters were written on tightly-woven pieces of cloth (cv aiv66ai
Aiav KCKpoTqpcvaig; Janert 1955/56, 53-55, Falk 1993, 290), and it is likely that
he referred to Aramaic letters used by the Achaemenid bureaucracy in Gandhara
(von Hiniiber 1990, 20-21), even though cloth is not attested among the Aramaic
finds from Bactria, Persia and Egypt. In the 3"^ century BCE, the Asokan inscrip¬
tions in Aramaic (Boyce/Grenet 1991,131-149) attest to the continued use of this
language and script in Gandhara.

Detailed studies of the Aramaic documents from Egypt and Persia have been
carried out by Bezalel Porten (especially Porten 1979 and 1980), and the follow¬
ing overview of Aramaic scroll construction and use is based on his findings. The
recent publication of the Bactrian archive has confirmed the results set out below.

At least in those parts of the Achaemenid empire where papyrus rolls were
available, the Aramaic tradition also distinguished between a long format (hori¬
zontal scrolls filled in columns and used for literary works and long lists) and a
short format (for letters, contracts and shorter accounts; Porten 1980,41). Depend¬
ing on the importance of the short-format documents and on the available raw
materials, they could be produced from more durable parchment or less durable
papyrus (and, according to Nearchus, also from cloth). In the case of papyrus,
the starting point for both scroll formats were long rolls of about 40 cm in width
that had themselves been glued together from sheets in such a way that on the
recto the papyrus fibers were perpendicular to the joins, while on the verso they
were parallel to the joins. The orientation of the horizontal long-format scrolls
was accordingly such that the lines of writing followed the direction of the fibers
(and were perpendicular to the joins) on the recto, but in the short-format scrolls
the lines of writing are perpendicular to the fibers (and parallel to the joins) on
the recto. This indicates that in the production, inscribing and use of short-format

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

217

Aramaic documents the orientation of the writing material was vertical (Porten
1979, 80), and confirms the visual evidence of the Assyrian reliefs.

Based on an examination of more than 30 Aramaic short-format documents,
Porten 1979,78-79,92 distinguishes three different types of width among papyrus
scrolls - a small size of 25-26 cm, a medium size of 27-28 cm and a large size of
30-32 cm^^ - as well as a typical width of 30-32 cm among parchment letters.
The width range of Aramaic short-format scrolls thus overlaps with that of the
Gandharan short-format scrolls studied in this article (ca. 20 cm to 27 cm), but
not with that of the Gandharan long-format scrolls (14 cm to ca. 15.5 cm). Porten
does not provide an account of the heights of his documents, but the photographs
published in the editions of Aramaic documents show that their height varied as
much as that of the Gandharan short-format scrolls, from a slightly-wider-than-
high aspect ratio (like in scroll RS 19) to scrolls that are considerably higher than
they are wide (like BL 5B), depending on the space requirements of their content
(Porten 1979,92).

Aramaic papyrus scrolls (and presumably also parchment scrolls) were
inscribed with a black ink made from carbon mixed with a thin gum solution,
using a reed brush (specimens of which have been found) as writing instrument
(Porten 1979, 76, 79-80). While some uncertainty remains about the exact com¬
position of Gandharan ink and while no original pens have yet been discovered
in Gandhara, the basic tools of the two scribal traditions thus agree in general
outline. When an Aramaic scribe needed to correct a mistake he blotted it out
using a piece of cloth or his finger (Haran 1982,168-169), another habit that he
shared with his Gandharan counterparts (see section 4).

The extent to which the Aramaic writing material was filled with text, and
the way in which the text was laid out, depended both on the type of text and
the nature of the material. Letters on parchment and contracts on parchment or
papyrus were inscribed on the recto only (Porten 1979, 88-90, 92). In the case of
parchment, this was due to the coarse surface of the verso which made it unsuit¬
able for writing. The motivation for writing contracts on one side only is less clear,
but it is likely that the physical protection of the content was more important in
this type of text than in others. When a scroll was inscribed on both sides, the
scribe would flip it over vertically in reaching the bottom of the recto, and con¬
tinue inscribing the verso from the same end of the scroll (Porten 1980, 42), in
just the same way as the early Gandharan scribes. The text area of Aramaic short-
format documents starts one or two centimeters from the right edge of the scroll,
and lines run as close to the left margin as their content allowed, corresponding

27 Porten 1980, 39-40 operates with two standard widths of 27 cm and 32 cm instead.

218

Stefan Baums

exactly to the Gandharan practice. The top sheet (approximately 15-20 cm) of
a contract scroll was usually left empty (Porten 1979, 81), presumably again for
the protection of the content of the scroll when it was folded up, a practice that
we also observed in the Gandharan long-format scroll Dhp-G’’' and in the short-
format scroll BC 8. When an Aramaic scribe ran out of writing surface before
he could complete his text, he would turn the sheet clockwise and continue
writing in the right margin (Porten 1979, 92), in the same fashion that the scribe
of Gandharan scroll BC 16 continued his text in the right (and top) margin when
he had reached the end of his verso. The endorsement of an Aramaic contract
and the recipient address of an Aramaic letter were written at the very bottom
of the verso so that they would be visible when the scroll was folded up (Porten
1979, 80-81). As shown in section 4, there are strong indications that the recipient
address on scroll BC 15 also occupied this position, providing yet another paral¬
lelism between Aramaic and early Gandharan scribal practice.

For storage or transportation, Aramaic short-format documents would be
folded up vertically from the bottom to the top of the scroll, in such a way that
the recto faced the inside (Porten 1979, 80-81). When the scroll had been folded
up all the way into a compact strip, one of several forms of horizontal folding
would be applied, depending on the type of document: contracts were folded in
thirds, while letters were folded either in half, or first in half and then in quarters
(Porten 1979, 88-90; Figure 12). The primary vertical folding of Aramaic short-
format documents thus corresponds precisely to the folding of both short-format
and long-format scrolls in early Gandhara, and one of the two variants of horizon¬
tal folding of Aramaic letters corresponds to the horizontal folding of Gandharan
short-format scrolls.

In view of this long list of detailed agreements in the way that short-format
documents were prepared, inscribed and used in the Achaemenid empire and
in early Gandhara, and on the historical background of the Achaemenid admin¬
istration of Gandhara at the time when the Aramaic script was first adapted to
the vnriting of the Gandhari language, I therefore suggest that Aramaic manu¬
script formats and scribal habits as practised in the Achaemenid empire likevdse
formed the starting point for the Gandharan manuscript tradition. The immedi¬
ate point of contact between the two traditions is provided by their short-format
documents, and also historically it seems likely that the inhabitants of Gandhara
under Achaemenid administration primarily (or even exclusively) observed the
use of Aramaic manuscripts and writing in the form of documents regulating
their everyday affairs. When they made this new cultural technique their own,
evidently also applying it to legal and administrative purposes, the first innova¬
tion consisted in the use of the locally available writing material birch bark. The
long strips of bark harvested from trees replaced the strips of parchment and rolls

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

219

Ro< VnM OoM«)
Pfom Too Oi$o>ayino
Endorsement

Ron Turned Over
From Side Endorsemertf
Upside Down

Fig. 12: Inscribing and folding of an Aramaic contract scroll (Porten 1979, 79).

of papyrus, and vertical margin threads were introduced to compensate for the
greater fragility of birch bark, but in all other respects the preparation and use
of short-format documents remained the same that it had been in the Aramaic
tradition.

When manuscripts started being used for the transmission and ritual han¬
dling of Buddhist (and non-Buddhist) literature, the need for a separate long
format arose. But as noted above, the Aramaic long format was probably never
very familiar in Gandhara and presumably disappeared completely as a possible
model with the collapse of the Achaemenid empire in the 4* century BCE. The
corresponding Greek long-format type may have been used in the Greek colonies
in Bactria around the same time, but the cultural influence of these Greek col¬
onies did not permeate Gandhara until the middle of the 2"*^ century BCE, and
thus the Greek scroll also appears to have been unavailable as a model for the
development of the Gandharan long-format type. Because of the unavailability

220

Stefan Baums

of these external models, the development of the Gandharan long-format scroll
proceeded as a simple vertical extension of the short-format type as described in
detail above, but possibly inspired by the observation that Aramaic short-format
scrolls on papyrus were cut from rolls that wrere originally glued together from
sheets. If this scenario is accepted, then it suggests that the development of the
Gandharan long-format scroll occurred between the end of Achaemenid rule
and the beginning of strong Greek influence in Gandhara, at some point of time
beween 300 and 150 BCE.

The evidence thus indicates that birch-bark scrolls in two different formats
constituted the primary manuscript type of Gandhara for approximately five
hundred years, until they fell out of use and were replaced by the pan-South-
Asian writing material palm leaf and its narrow horizontal format. The almost
complete disappearance of the scroll format appears to have gone hand in hand
with the replacement of Gandhari as a literary language by Sanskrit, and both
processes are clearly illustrated by the 2"'*- to 4*-century CE Kharosthi manu¬
scripts found at Bamiyan and in Xinjiang (see Table 1) which are not only exclu¬
sively written on palm leaf but show a high degree of Sanskritization. The later
use of birch bark for other manuscript types falls outside the scope of this article,
but it is interesting to note that we can distinguish three cycles of the introduction
and adaptation of manuscript traditions in Gandhara and the surrounding areas:

1. In the 6* century BCE, Gandhara comes under the influence of the Achaeme¬
nid empire and is introduced to the Aramaic administrative manuscript tradi¬
tion. It adapts both the writing system and the writing material of this tradi¬
tion to the local language and to a locally available raw material.

2. In the 2"'^ century CE, Gandhara comes into closer contact with the manu¬
script traditions of mainland South Asia, using the Brahmi script and palm
leaf as writing material. The local script and literary language are given
up, and birch-bark manuscripts imitating the palm-leaf format become the
general manuscript type of Gandhara (Sander 1968, 24, 27-29).

3. In the late millenium CE, Gandharan Buddhist manuscript culture gradu¬
ally disappears. Western paper formats and the codex are introduced to the
region, but in Kashmir birch bark continues to be used for the production of
manuscript codices, until paper is adopted as the general writing material
under Mughal influence in the 17**^ century CE (Biihler 1877, 29-30).

The Gandharan scroll format survived in niche applications for amulets and
ritual purposes (Gough 1878,17-18, Biihler 1896, 88, Janert 1955/56, 71-72, Losty
1982, 9). The earliest example for this practice appears to be part of the same
manuscript deposit as the rest of the BE collection (Salomon 1999, 46). The scroll
in question (BE 6) is exceptionally narrow (5.5 cm) and made from a single piece

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

221

of bark. In contrast to all other known Gandharan scrolls it is written in Brahmi.
It appears to contain a Buddhist stitra comparing the human body to a city (not a
medical text as initially reported). A very similar narrow paper scroll, measuring
6.4 cm in width and containing a collection of sutras and magical formulas, was
found in Shorchuk on the Northern Silk Road (Waldschmidt 1959). At the other
end of the spectrum in terms of size and chronology, we find large illustrated
scrolls to be carried in procession, such as the twenty-meter-long cloth scroll con¬
taining a Devanagari text of the Bhdgavatapurdna illustrated in Gaur 1972,160. In
all of these later scrolls the general parameters of text layout and the direction of
folding or rolling remained the same as in the early Gandharan scroll types.

Further research is needed on the historical relationship between the
Gandharan birch-bark scroll format and the thin sheets of gold, silver and copper
that often accompanied contemporary Buddhist relic deposits, recording their
donor and beneficiaries and sometimes quoting from canonical literature (Baums
2012). These metal sheets are typically much wider than high and rolled up hori¬
zontally, but some resemble the short-format birch-bark scrolls in their dimen¬
sions, and the Senavarma gold sheet (Baums 2012, no. 24) shows signs of having
been folded in thirds horizontally (like the Aramaic contract scrolls, but without
prior vertical folding). Janert 1955/56, 42 independently suggested that the metal
sheets might imitate pieces of birch bark folded up and deposited in reliquar¬
ies, and several reports of birch-bark “twists” found in reliquaries but now lost
(summarized in Salomon 1999,59-61) may refer to these prototypes for the metal
sheets. Two recently-found copper books - consisting, respectively, of five and
eight plates that have the general shape and size of birch-bark sheets and are
linked to each other by metal rings - may similarly represent metal imitations
of long-format birch-bark scrolls, and the recent edition of the shorter of these
books (Falk 2014) reveals a relic-donation formula expanded by numerous scrip¬
tural quotations, similar to the text on the Senavarma gold sheet. A full edition
of the other copper book remains an urgent desideratum, but it seems increas¬
ingly likely that the legendary reports of Buddhist canonical texts engraved on
copper and interred in stupas - most notably by the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang
(7* century CE) in reference to the Buddhist council under Kaniska (Biihler 1896,
90, Janert 1955/56,43, Falk 1993,309) - are rooted in a memory of such long, liter¬
ary relic inscriptions on copper imitations of long-format birch-bark scrolls.

222

Stefan Baums

References

Alien, Mark (2001), Three GandharlEkottarikdgama-Type Sutras: British Library KharosthI
Fragments 12 and 14, Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Alien, Mark(2007), “The Senior manuscripts”. Introduction to Andrew Glass, Four GdndhdrI
Sarnyuktdgama Sutras: Senior KharosthI Fragment 5, Seattle: University of Washington
Press, 3-25.

Allen, Mark (201A), “The Senior KharosthI manuscripts”. In: Harrison / Hartmann 2014,19-33.

Alien, Mark/ Salomon, Richard (2010), “New evidence for Mahayana In early Gandhara”, In:

The Eastern Buddhist 41,1-22.

Alien, Mark/ Salomon, Richard / Jacobsen, Geraldine / Zoppl, Ugo (2006), “Radiocarbon dating
of KharosthI fragments from the Schoyen and Senior manuscript collections”. In: Jens
Braarvlg (ed.), Buddhist Manuscripts, Volume tit, Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 279-291.

Baums, Stefan (2009), A GdndhdrI Commentary on Early Buddhist Verses: British Library
KharosthI Fragments 7, 9,13 and 18, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington.

Baums, Stefan (2012), “Catalog and revised texts and translations of Gandharan reliquary
Inscriptions”, In: David jongeward, Elizabeth Errlngton, Richard Salomon and Stefan
Baums, Gandhdran Buddhist Reliquaries, Seattle: Early Buddhist Manuscripts Project,
200-251.

Boyce, Mary / Grenet, Frantz (1991), A History of Zoroastrianism, Volume III: Zoroastrianism
under Macedonian and Roman Rule, Leiden: Brill.

Bresclanl, E. / Kamil, M. (1966), Le lettere aramaiche di Hermopoli, Roma: Accademla Nazlonale
del Llncel.

Brough, John (1962), The GdndhdrIDharmapada, London: Oxford University Press.

Buhler, George (1877), Detailed Report of a Tour in Search of Sanskrit MSS. Made in Kasmir,
Rajputana, and Central india, Bombay: Royal Asiatic Society’s Library.

Buhler, George (1896), Indische Palaeographie von circa 350 a. Chr. - circa 1300 p. Chr.,
Strassburg: Verlagvon KarlJ. Triibner.

Cowley, A. (1923), Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Cox, Collett (2014), “Gandharl KharosthI manuscripts: exegetlcal texts”. In: Harrison /

Hartmann 2014,35-49.

Dougherty, Raymond P. (1928), “Writing upon parchment and papyrus among the Babylonians
and the Assyrians”, In: Journal of the American Oriental Society 48, 109-135.

Driver, G. R. (1954), Aramaic Documents of the Fifth Century B.C., Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Falk, Harry (1993), Schriftim alten indien: ein Forschungsbericht mit Anmerkungen, Tubingen:
Gunter Narr Verlag.

Falk, Harry (2011), “The ‘split’ collection of KharosthI texts”. In:

IS Sdka daigaku kokusai bukkydgaku koto kenkyujo nenpd 14,13-23.

Falk, Harry (2014), “The first-century copper-plates of Helagupta from Gandhara hailing

Maltreya”, In: Sdka daigaku kokusai bukkydgaku kdtd

kenkyujo nenpd 17, 3-26.

Falk, Harry / Strauch, Ingo (2014), “The Bajaur and split collections of KharosthI manuscripts
within the context of Buddhist Gandharl literature”. In: Harrison / Hartmann 2014, 51-78.

Fltzmyer, Joseph A. (1981), “Aramaic eplstolography”. In: Semeia 22: 25-57.

Gaur, Albertlne (1972), “Manuscripts of India, Ceylon and South-East Asia”, In: Hendrik D. L.
Vervllet (ed.). The Book through Five Thousand Years, London: Phaldon, 140-162.

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

223

Glass, Andrew (2000), A Preliminary Study of KharosthI Manuscript Paleography, M.A. thesis.
University of Washington.

Glass, Andrew (2004), “KharosthI manuscripts: a window on Gandharan Buddhism”,

In: Nagoya Studies in indian Culture and Buddhism: Sarnbhdsd 24,129-152.

Glass, Andrew (2007), Four Gdndhdri Samyuktdgama Sutras: Senior KharosthI Fragment 5,
Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Gough, Archibald Edward (1878), Papers Relating to the Collection and Preservation of the
Records of Ancient Sanskrit Literature in India, Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of
Government Printing, India.

Haran, Menahem (1982), “Book-scrolls In Israel In pre-Exlllc Times”, In: Journal of Jewish
Studies 33,161-173.

Harrison, Paul / Hartmann, )ens-Uwe (eds.) (2014), From Birch-Bark to Digital Data: Recent
Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research: Papers Presented at the Conference ‘indie
Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field,’ Stanford, June 15-192009, Wien: Verlag der
Osterrelchlschen Akademle der Wlssenschaften.

Hicks, R. Lansing (1983), “De/ef and m‘illdh: a fresh approach to Jeremiah xxxvl”. In: Vetus
Testamentum 33, 46-66.

von Hlnliber, Oskar (1980), “Die Kolophone der Gllglt-Handschrlften”, In: StudienzurIndologie
undlranistik5/6, 49-82.

von Hlnliber, Oskar (1990), DerBeginn der Schrift und frilhe Schriftlichkeit in Indien, Mainz:
Akademle der Wlssenschaften und der Llteratur.

Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf (1893-1912), The Bower Manuscript: Facsimile Leaves, Nagari Transcript,
Romanised Transliteration and English Translation with Notes, Calcutta: Superintendent
Government Printing India.

Hoernle, A. F. Rudolf (1900), “An epigraphical note on palm-leaf, paper and birch-bark”,

\n: Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 69, 93-134.

Hyatt, (.Philip (1943), “The writing of an Old Testament book”, in: The Biblical Archaeologist 6,
71-80.

jager, Ulf (2006), “Birkenrinde der asiatisch-indischen ‘Betula Bhojpattr’ bzw. ‘Betula Utilis’
als Beschreibstoff im praislamischen Zentralasien: ein wenig beachtetes Handelsgut auf
den alten SeidenstraBen”, in: Munstersche Beitrdge zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 25,
183-194.

Janert, Klaus Ludwig (1955/56), Von der Art und den Mitteln der indischen Textweitergabe:
Bericht ilber mundliche und schriftliche Tradierungsmethoden sowie die Schreibmate-
rialien in Indien, Kbln: Bibliothekar-Lehrinstitut des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen.

Kaye, G. R. (1927), in: The BakhshdllManuscript: a Study in Medixval Mathematics, Calcutta:
Government of India Central Publication Branch.

Khan, M. Nasim / Khan, M. Sohail (2004), “Buddhist KharosthI manuscripts from Gandhara: a
new discovery”. The Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 12: 9-15.

Kraeling, Emil G. (1953), The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth
Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine, New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kurita Isao SBBTi (1988-90), ^JlJf Ganddra bijutsu, Tokyo: Nigensha.

Lee, Mei-huang (2009), A Study of the Gdndhdri Ddrukkhandhopamasutta (“Discourse on the
Simile of the Log"), Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington.

Lemaire, Andre (1985), “Vom Ostrakon zur Schriftrolle: Uberlegungen zur Entstehung der

Bibel”, in: Wolfgang Rbllig (ed.), KX//. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 21. bis25. Mdrzl983
in Tubingen: ausgewdhlte Vortrdge, Stuttgart: Steiner Wiesbaden, 110-123.

224

Stefan Baums

Lenz, Timothy (2003), A New Version of the Gandharl Dharmapada and a Collection of

Previous-Birth Stories: British Library KharosthIFragments 16 + 25, Seattle: University of
Washington Press.

Lenz, Timothy (2010), Gandhdran Avaddnas: British Library KharosthI Fragments 1-3 and 21
and Supplementary Fragments A-C, Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Losty, Jeremiah P. (1982), The Art of the Book in India, London: The British Library.

Marshall, John (1951), Taxila: An illustrated Account of Archaeological Excavations Carried out
at Taxila under the Orders of the Government of India between the Years 1913 and 1934,
Cambridge: University Press.

Matsuda, Kazunobu (2009), “Buddhist manuscripts from the Bamiyan valley, Afghanistan”,
in: Kazuya Yamauchi (2009), Preliminary Report on the Conservation of the Bamiyan
Birch Bark Buddhist Manuscripts, Tokyo: Japan Center for International Cooperation in
Conservation, National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, 7-9.

Melzer, Gudrun (2007), Ein Abschnitt aus dem DIrghdgama, Ph.D. dissertation, Ludwig-
Maximilians-Universitat Munchen.

Naveh, Joseph / Shaked, Shaul (2012), Aramaic Documents from Ancient Bactria. (Fourth
Century BCE.) London: The Khalili Family Trust.

Norman, K. R. (200A), “A new version of the GandharT Dharmapada?”, in: Acta Orientalia 65:
113-133.

Porten, Bezalel (1979), “Aramaic papyri 8i parchments: a new look”, in: The Biblical Archae¬
ologist 42, 74-104.

Porten, Bezalel (1980), “Aramaic letters: a study in papyrological reconstruction”, in: Journal of
the American Research Center in Egypt 17, 39-75.

Rahman, Abdur (1993), “Shnaisha Gumbat: first preliminary excavation report”, in: Ancient
Pakistan 7,1-124.

Sachau, Eduard (1888), Alberuni’s india: an Account of the Religion, Philosophy, Literature,

Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws and Astrology of India about A.D. 1030,
London: K. Paul, Trench, Triibner 8i Co.

Sachau, Eduard (1911), Aramaische Papyrus und Ostraka aus einer judischen Militdr-Kolonie zu
Elephantine: altorientalische Sprachdenkmdler des 5. jahrhunderts vor Chr., Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.

Salomon, Richard (1998), “KharosthI manuscript fragments in the Pelliot collection,
Bibliotheque nationale de France”, in: Bulletin d’etudes indiennes 16,123-160.

Salomon, Richard (1999), Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhdra: the British Library KharosthI
Fragments, Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Salomon, Richard (2000), A GdndhdrI Version of the Rhinoceros Sutra: British Library KharosthI
Fragment SB, Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Salomon, Richard (2003), “The Senior manuscripts: another collection of Gandharan Buddhist
scrolls”, in: Journal of the American Oriental Society 123, 73-92.

Salomon, Richard (2008), Two GdndhdrI Manuscripts of the Songs of Lake Anavatapta

(Anavatapta-gdthd): British Library KharosthI Fragment 1 and Senior Scroll 14, Seattle:
University of Washington Press.

Salomon, Richard (2009), “Why did the Gandharan Buddhists bury their manuscripts?”,
in: Stephen C. Berkwitz / Juliane Schober / Claudia Brown (eds.), Buddhist Manuscript
Cultures: Knowledge, Ritual, and Art, London: Routledge, 19-3A.

Salomon, Richard (201A), “GandharT manuscripts in the British Library, Schoyen and other
collections”, in: Harrison / Hartmann 2014,1-17.

Gandharan Scrolls: Rediscovering an Ancient Manuscript Type

225

Salomon, Richard / Baums, Stefan (2007), “Sanskrit Iksvaku, Pall Okkaka, and GandharT
Ismaho”, In: Journal of the Pali Text Society 29, 201-227.

Sander, Lore (1968), Palaographisches zu den Sanskrithandschriften der Berliner Turfan-
sammlung, Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Sayce, A. H. (1906), Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan, London: Alexander Morlng.

Senart, E. (1898), “Le manuscrlt kharosthT du Dhammapada : les fragments Dutreull de Rhlns”,
tn: Journal asiatique 12,193-308.

Shaked, Shaul (200A), Le satrape de Bactriane etson gouverneur: documents arameens du IV‘
s. avant notre ere provenant de Bactriane, Paris: Editions de Boccard.

Strauch, Ingo (2008), “The Bajaur collection of KharosthT manuscripts - a preliminary survey”,
\n:Studien zur indologie und iranistik 25,103-136.

Taddel, Maurlzlo (1983), “Addenda to The story of the Buddha and the skull-tapper (AlON, 39,
1979, 3)”, In: Annali dell’lstituto Universitario Orientate 43, 333-339.

Tarzl, ZemaryalaT (2005), “La ceramlque de Hadda : etude prellmlnalre”. In: ZemaryalaTTarzl /
Denyse Valllancourt (eds.). Art et archeologie des monasteres greco-bouddhiques du
Nord-Ouest de I’tnde et de I’Asie centrale: actes du collogue international du Crpoga
(Strasbourg, 17-18mars2000), Paris: De Boccard, 209-317.

Tlssot, Franclne (1985), Gandhara, Paris: Llbralrle d’Amerlque et d’Orlent Jean Malsonneuve.

Vorob’eva-Deslatovskala, Margarita 1. (1987-88), “Rukoplsnala knlga v kul’ture Indll”, In:

O.F. Akimushkin et al. (eds.), Rukopisnaia kniga vkut’ture narodov Vostoka, Moscow:
Izdatel’stvo «Nauka», 2, 7-80.

Vorob’eva-Deslatovskala, Margarita 1. (2006), “Fragment pls’mom kharoshtkhl Iz kollektsll S. F.
Ol’denburga”, In: Pis’menniepamiatniki Vostoka 4,145-149.

Waldschmldt, Ernst (1959), Kleine BrdhmI-Schriftrolle, Gottingen: Vandenhoeck 8i Ruprecht.

Westermann, William Linn (1928), “On Inland transportation and communication In antiquity”,
\n: Political Science Quarterly 43, 364-387.

Yamauchl, Kazuya (2009), Preliminary Report on the Conservation of the Bamiyan Birch Bark
Buddhist Manuscripts, Tokyo: japan Center for International Cooperation In Conservation,
National Research Institute for Cultural Properties.

Zwalf, W. (1996), A Catalogue of the Gandhara Sculpture in the British Museum, London: British
Museum Press.

Gudrun Melzer

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist
Manuscript from the Gilgit Region

A Glimpse into a Scribes’ Workshop

1 Introduction

About twelve years ago, a fairly well preserved, voluminous birch-bark manu¬
script was sold on the antiquities market to collectors in Japan, Norway, and the
United States (Figures l-2)t It contains the canonical Sanskrit text of the long
discourses of the Buddha, the Dlrghagama of the (Mula-)Sarvastivada tradition,
one of the most influential schools of non-Mahayana Buddhism. The manuscript
can be dated to the latter half of the 8* century or slightly later. Several of the
texts in the manuscript show numerous scribal errors that, in places, make these
texts nearly incomprehensible. Since the manuscript is only incompletely pre¬
served and is the only surviving copy of these texts, an editor today who wishes to
make them accessible for a wider audience will quite naturally begin to resent the
responsible scribes. But presumably a Buddhist reader of the 8**^ century - even
if generally familiar with the content of these texts - would also have had dif¬
ficulties due to the many misspellings and omissions in some parts of the manu¬
script.^ In fact, one wonders what the purpose of such a manuscript might have
been. It is possible that it was not intended to be actually used, to be read and

1 The first part of the manuscript up to folio 266 is preserved merely in fragments. A few folios
(e.g., 289 and 290) are still stuck together, and as yet their contents cannot be accessed. The last
folio is numbered 454. More than half of the manuscript is presently accessible in the form of
digital images of good quality.

2 Most of the leaves are in a private collection in Virginia (USA). Folios 330-363 and 367-384
belong to the Hirayama collection in Kamakura (Japan), folios 364-366 are owned by Bukkyo
University in Kyoto (Japan) and a few fragments are part of the Martin Schoyen collection in Oslo
(Norway). Three small fragments from the Govindasutra were offered for sale in 2005 by Isao
Kurita (Tokyo). On the manuscript in general, see Hartmann 2000, 2002a, 2004a, 2014, as well
as Melzer 2010,1-10.

3 Also present-day readers are often well equipped; with large digital collections of texts of the
same school or of related traditions in Sanskrit and Pali, as well as with translations into Tibetan
or Chinese that are easily searchable, together with a network of specialised scholar friends al¬
ways eager to give helpful suggestions. At this point, I would like to thank Jan-Ulrich Sobisch
for inviting me to the Copenhagen Workshop on manuscriptology in 2007 and the participants
for their suggestions. I am also grateful to Lore Sander, who read the draft of this article and

228

Gudrun Melzer

Studied, but was rather produced for a library as part of a complete set of the Bud¬
dhist scriptures regarded at that time as canonical or fundamental. Another pos¬
sibility, although less likely, is that it was copied to keep in a stupa, as the word of
the Buddha, where it would have remained unseen and untouched. But the situ¬
ation is complicated further by the fact that although the manuscript was written
so carelessly with regard to its contents, the general layout of the pages was done
with care and the script is appealing. For this reason, a detailed palaeographi-
cal analysis of the manuscript was undertaken. This analysis yielded rewarding
results. It seems that a considerable number of the flaws were not copied from the
earlier original manuscripts, but possibly occurred only in the course of writing
this manuscript due to the way the scribes worked. Indeed, from studying this
manuscript, it became evident that the impact of individual scribes on canonical
Buddhist texts should not be underestimated.

After a brief introduction about the manuscript and its errors, the individual
characteristics of the scribes and their working methods vdll be discussed, as
well as some palaeographic peculiarities typical for manuscripts of this period.
In the long tradition of copying Buddhist manuscripts, it is clear that also other
factors most likely led to the present condition of the text. These must also be
searched for, such as special characteristics in the language, which underwent
changes over the centuries.

2 The manuscript of the Dirghagama of the
(MQla-)Sarvastivadms

Only two complete versions of text collections of the long Buddha discourses are
thus far known, one in Pali and one in Chinese. These other complete versions
belong to other Buddhist schools (Theravada and Dharmaguptaka, respectively)
and differ in many respects from the newly discovered manuscript. Although
some texts are common to all three collections, the exact wording is different
from one version to another, and therefore it is not possible to rely on parallel
passages to fill gaps, as for example where our manuscript is damaged. There are
also a few texts in the newly discovered manuscript that have no textual paral¬
lels in the other two collections. The closest parallels can usually be found in
Tibetan translations of (Mula-)Sarvastivada texts, but many of the texts in the
Dirghagama lack even a Tibetan translation.

provided numerous helpful comments. Jens-Uwe Hartmann kindly provided the scans of the
Dirghagama folios in the American collection, and Cynthia Peck-Kubaczek corrected my English.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

229

According to a radiocarbon dating (^^C), the earliest possible date for the pro¬
duction of our manuscript is the second half of the 8*^ century.'' The exact place
of origin is not known. However, the antiquity dealer who sold the manuscript
provided the information that it was discovered by chance in Giigit. Indeed, its
formal aspects do show a close similarity to later manuscripts from the famous
Giigit finds.^

The tovm of Giigit lies on ancient trade routes in northern Pakistan, in a region
that was called Patola or Palola at the time our manuscript was written. The town
became famous after a number of manuscripts were discovered there in 1931 and
cursory excavations were undertaken in 1938. The original function of the build¬
ing in whose ruins the manuscripts were found is still not conclusively clear.®
With very few exceptions, the manuscripts in the find are written on birch-bark
and date to the 6* to 8**’ centuries (or slightly later) Two kinds of standardised
scripts were used. Lore Sander has called them Gilgit/Bamiyan, type 1 (GB 1),
and Gilgit/Bamiyan, type 2 (GB 2), since both are also attested in Afghanistan.®
Because GB 2 gradually developed into the regional script of greater Kashmir, it is
also called Proto-Sarada (PS); it corresponds in general to the north Indian script

4 The possible period of production lies between 764 and 1000 CE. Cf. Alton et al. 2006,279-280,

n. 3.

5 A truck driver independently informed Andrew Glass (a scholar who visited the area soon after
the find) that in 1998, a manuscript of similar shape and a few other objects were found in a
hole in a field near the so-called Kargah Buddha and the Giigit River, at a place called Basin (see
Melzer 2010, 4-5). While it is uncertain whether the account of the dealer (see Sadakata 1999;
also mentioned in Hartmann 2000, 360, n. 4) can be trusted, and also whether the manuscript
reported by the truck driver is the same as our Dlrghagama, but its close formal similarities with
the manuscript of the Vinayavastvagama point to the Giigit area as a probable place of origin.

6 On the Giigit manuscripts, see the references in Melzer 2010, 5, n. 21, and especially von
Hiniiber 2014. For reflections on the shape of the building where the manuscripts were found,
see Fussman 2004. For related discoveries of Buddhist bronzes and inscriptions, see in particular
von Hiniiber 2004 and 2007.

7 The manuscript of the Sarvadharmagunavyuharajasutra is written on palm-leaf. It has been
studied and edited by von Criegern (2009) in his dissertation (currently in preparation for pub¬
lication). Two other manuscripts contain pages of “clay-coated paper”, as they are referred to in
von Hiniiber 2014, 91.

8 For descriptions, see Sander 1968, 122-123, 137. For the problems involved in naming these
scripts, see Sander 2007, 126-129. The manuscripts written in GB 2 from Tumsuq and Toyoq
(northern Silk Road in central Asia) were imported, or copied from imported manuscripts, ac¬
cording to Sander 1968,158-159. For details about GB 1 and the probable dates of its developed
type from about the 6'*' century, see Sander 1968, 123, 129, 134. For GB 2 corresponding by and
large with the alphabet m of Sander, see Sander 1968,141-148,154-161, Tafeln 21-26 and Hu-von
Hiniiber 1994, 42 (printed as “41”) note 1, 520-521. An overview of the research that has been
done on GB 2 is offered in Hu-von Hiniiber 1994, 37-40.

230

Gudrun Melzer

Siddhamatrka, described by Al-Biruni at the beginning of the century.® GB 2
gained general acceptance in the Gilgit area after the middle of the 7* century.“
The script has an elegant and even calligraphic appearance, due to alternating
straight, broad lines and diagonal, very thin lines, vdth the nib slanting to the
left.^^ Sander has examined trvo manuscripts in rvhich she has recognized twro
types of this script,^^ the more developed closely resembling the script used in the
Dlrghagama manuscript. In addition to the formal calligraphic type of writing,
a more cursive form was also used in both scripts (GB 1 and GB 2), e.g., for colo¬
phons and interlinear insertions.Thus far, there have been no further attempts
to study this script more systematically, with the exception of the numerals in
the Gilgit manuscripts.^® But even a brief look at the facsimile editions shows
that amongst the Gilgit manuscripts, there are several handwriting variants of
the already established types of script (GB 1 and GB 2). More research is required
in order to ascertain whether these variants existed concurrently, or if they have
a chronological order.

In contrast to the older manuscripts from Gilgit written in GB 1, which contain
only Mahayana and Raksa texts,the majority of the later manuscripts vnritten in

9 Sander 2007,128-129. For an attempt at a more precise definition within the regional develop¬
ment of the script, see appendix 11.

10 In this context, an inscription on a bronze image of Varsa appears to be quite important. It is
dated to the period of the ruler Navasurendradityanandi, and is the last inscription on a bronze
of the Palola Sahis that contains the symbol for 20 of the old addition numerical system, rather
than the new place-value system; see von Hiniiber 2004, 28-31, Nr. 11, Abb. 3, where it is dated
to 645-654 CE. It also represents one of the last examples for the tripartite aksara ya in dated
bronze inscriptions (ibid. p. 30). For the proposed dates of the dissemination of GB 2, see Sander
1968,160 (6**'-10**' centuries), Sander 1989, 111 (7**'-10'*' centuries), von Hiniiber 1983,61-62 (from
about 630 CE), von Hiniiber 1986-87, 226 (from about 620-30 CE), and von Hiniiber 2004, 89,
99 (under Navasurendradityanandi, who ruled from about 644 or 655 to about 685 CE). Lore
Sander (2007,130-131) has suggested the possibility that both scripts existed simultaneously for
a while, at least until Navasurendradityanandi, and that Siddhamatrka/GB 2/PS was probably
introduced into Greater Gandhara between the end of the 6® and the beginning of the 7® century.

11 Sander 1968,141-142; Sander 1989, 112; Sander 2007, 130-131.

12 See Sander 1968, 142-143. The relevant manuscripts are SHT 638, from Central Asia, and a
Pratimoksasutra manuscript from Gilgit (von Hiniiber 1979, 341, Nr. 3a). For the two main types
widely evidenced in GB 2, see appendix 11.

13 Sander 1989, 107-108. This variant of the script can be compared with inscriptions on stone
and bronzes.

14 Frentz 1987 Unfortunately, this important study has remained unpublished. A detailed pa-
laeographic study is also not available for GB 1. This lack has been pointed out in von Hiniiber
1979, 336, Frentz 1987, 3, and Tripathi 1995,14.

15 The very few exceptions concern fragments from texts that were circulated in a Mahayana and
a non-Mahayana environment, such as the Pradaksinagathas and the Adhhutadharmaparydya.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

231

GB 2/PS belong to the milieu of the (Mula-)Sarvastivada branch of BuddhismP®
According to the evidence known today, this shifting focus of attention also seems
to be testified by book cult practices (the donation of manuscripts of Buddhist
Mahayana sutras). This practice seems to have come to an end during the reign
of Navasurendradityanandid^ subsequent rulers and their wives only donated
bronze images, although some of these are of extraordinary artistic quality. While
a few of the earliest bronzes show figures from the Mahayana pantheon, such as
Avalokitesvara and Prajnaparamita, the later bronzes mainly represent Buddhas
or the bodhisattva Maitreya and therefore cannot be safely attributed to a particu¬
lar Buddhist tradition.^® The Dlrghagama manuscript, written in the developed
form of GB 2/PS, belongs to this later (Mula-)Sarvastivada tradition of Buddhist
manuscripts.

The size of the folios (10 x 50 cm)^® is wider and slightly shorter in length than
the large palm-leaf manuscripts from eastern India. The text is written in eight
lines, with a few exceptions (seven and nine lines). On the left half of the folios,
lines three to six are interrupted after the first third by a square space around the
string-hole, through which a string, however, has never been drawn, as can be
gleaned from the perfectly round state of preservation (Figure 1).^“ The general
appearance of the script is even, and the variation between thin and broad lines

16 There are only a few Mahayana texts, and most are preserved only as fragments: one folio
of the Bhaisajyagum(vaiduryaprabharaja)sutra (Ser. no. 32), two copies of the Samghdtasutra
(Ser. no. 39 and Srinagar Collection no. IS; the script of ser. no. 39 differs from the Dlrghagama
manuscript and shows more frequently older aksara types), one folio of a text similar to the
Dasabhumikasutra (Ser. no. 57: GBM 3338-3339), and a loose parallel to the final part of the
Aparimitayuhsiitra (Ser. no. 61b: GBM 3366). The only extant Raksa texts are fragments of the
Mahdmdyurividydrdjhl (one folio as Ser. no. 56a in New Delhi and many fragments in Srinagar)
and a mahdraksa added after the Hayagrivavidyd in GB 1 script (Ser. no. 33b: GBM 2459-2460).
A few fragments are still unidentified and their affiliation is therefore unclear (Ser. no. 42, 51e,
52d, 56g [GBM 3344 contains key-words from the Arthasdstra], 57, 59a). Finally, there are also
non-Buddhist texts, namely a grammatical fragment (see Kaul Shastri 1939 und von Hiniiber
2014), two medical treatises (see Kaul Shastri 1939 and Ser. no. 20: Annapdnavidhi), and two
folios of the *Devitantrasadbhdvasdra, a saiva tantric text (Ser. nos. 41 and 56e, see Sanderson
2009, 50-51, note 22, however, the suggested date of the middle of the century appears to be
slightly too early). The dominance of (Mula-)Sarvastivada texts in GB 2 has also been mentioned
in Sander 2007, 130, note 62. References to the type of script used in these Giigit manuscripts
can be found in Frentz 1987, 76-162. For details of all these manuscripts, see von Flinilber 2014.

17 See von Hiniiber 2004, 91.

18 The fact that many of these depict the Buddha with a crown and wearing jewellery is not
necessarily proof that they belong to the Mahayana tradition.

19 Hartmann 2002a, 133.

20 On folio 384v, the blank space for the string-hole is unusually placed between lines 4 and 6.
The few leaves written in nine lines show the string-hole between lines 4 and 5. The exact mea-

232

Gudrun Melzer

Fig. 2: Dirghagama Manuscript, last folio ASA v

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

233

234

Gudrun Melzer

of the aksaras gives it an elegant and almost calligraphic appearance. The individ¬
ual texts and verse summaries {udddna) of the manuscript are set apart by small
empty squares, mostly two lines tall, bordered by double dandas at both ends.
The end of the entire text is marked by three large decorated circles (Figure 2).
Their geometric flower shape, drawn with the help of a compass, resembles the
decorations on the last page of the Vinayavastvdgama manuscript from Gilgit
of about the same period (Figure 3). Of all the Gilgit manuscripts published in
facsimile, the Vinayavastvdgama manuscript is the only one with detailed orna¬
ments, although these surpass in elaboration those found in the Dirghdgama
manuscript.The Vinayavastvdgama manuscript also shares many other simi¬
larities with the Dirghdgama manuscript.

The second half of the manuscript is mostly intact. Many pages, however,
show damaged portions along the right or left margin. Some of the missing parts
have been found as fragments, but others are lost. Birch bark consists of several
layers, and with time it becomes fragile. When the layers separate, they easily
break into very small fragments. Such separated, loose fragments sometimes
stick to pages where they do not belong.^^ Occasionally, mirror images help us
to recover single words or syllables, as in cases in which the original has been
partly damaged or lost, but the ink has left an impression on the facing page. In
other cases, if a layer of birch-bark has been folded, the aksaras that shine only
faintly through can be made more legible with the help of a mirror image. The
observations on palaeographic peculiarities detailed below were only possible

surements for the empty space vary, as do the measurements for the margin. For further details,
see Melzer 2010, 2.

21 The manuscript of the Vinayavastvdgama is generally written in ten lines with the exception
of the last folio. It is larger than the Dirghdgama manuscript, measuring 66.3-66.5 cm in length
and 12.2-12.5 cm in width (Hu von Hiniiber 1994, 36). For a description of the manuscript, see
Wille 1990, 35 and Hu-von Hiniiber 1994, 36. For the different editions, see von Hiniiber 2014,
93-94. The last folio is published in facsimile in GBM1050, GM III.2 after p. xxii (the correct folio
number reads 523; cf. Wille 1990, 35), and von Hiniiber 2014, fig. 4. Much smaller and simpler
circular ornaments can be also seen in GBM 1452 and 1706. Such geometrical flower embellish¬
ments are, however, not confined to manuscripts written in GB 2, since in a few cases they also
occur in a similar shape in later manuscripts from eastern India and Nepal. See a folio from a
palm-leaf manuscript of the Astasahasrikd Prajhdpdramitd dated to Nepal Samvat 128 (1008 CE)
in the Cambridge University Library (Add. 866, folio 201; Bendall 1883, 1-4, pi. 1.3), and a folio
from the same text from year 14 of the reign of Nayapala, kept at the Los Angeles County Museum
of Art (M.72.1.20ab).

22 When such fragments are superficially in line with the surrounding text, it is often the case
that one must take extra care to recognise that they do not belong there. Since the leaves in the
US private collection are shrink-wrapped in plastic sheets, at the moment such fragments cannot
be removed.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

235

due to the fact that large sections of the manuscript are available in the form of
excellent scans.^^

3 Some typical examples of scribal errors in the
manuscript

The physical condition of this manuscript is not the only problem in recover¬
ing its text. The reader is also faced with scribal errors. The following selected
examples from the Silaskandha-nipdta, which is one of the three sections of the
Dlrghagama, demonstrate some typical errors.

Misspellings due to misunderstanding the master copy occur frequently,
since there are many possibilities for confusing aksaras that have similar
shapes.^'' Such misspellings are usually clear. However, difficulties arise when
several such confusions occur in the same phrase, or when they occur together
with other types of errors, in particular vdth omissions. On rare occasions, syl¬
lables or words have been distorted.^^ Several words have been misspelled due to
association with similar words.Sometimes, incorrect declinations or conjuga¬
tions can be found.^^ There are also superfluous visargas, vowel diacritics, syl¬
lables, words and phrases. Most of these can be explained as dittography.

The most common types of scribal errors are omissions. Omissions can be as
small as single anusvdms, vowel diacritics or syllables, or as long as words, whole

23 In contrast to digital photography, scans have the advantage that information about the ac¬
tual size of the manuscript is also stored. When working with the digital images of the central
Asian Sanskrit manuscripts of the British Library (published at http://idp.bl.uk/), for example,
it is almost impossible to recognize fragments belonging to the same folio because the digital
photographs have been taken at different scales (even though a simple ruler is included on the
images).

24 E.g., -dm and -o, ga and so, dva and du etc. For a more complete list, see Melzer 2010, 65.

25 E.g. purusamahdlaksandni “great marks of a man”, instead of mahdpurusalaksandni “marks
of a great man” (35.7), which even gives a certain sense. In combination with omitted syllables,
we read in one passage lokesu “amongst the people” for ko{sa)Iesu “amongst the Kosalas” (35.16).
Edited passages of the Dlrghagama manuscript are referred to according to their number in my
edition of the text. The first number denotes the sequence of the sutra as given in Hartmann
2004a, 125-128.

26 E.g., namaslairvarnti instead of satkurvamti (35.29), putravdna instead of purdna<rn> (35.35),
kusalavarnsa instead of kulavarnsa (35.51), bhdsisyati instead of bhavisyati (35.111).

27 E.g., (vdca)ydmi instead of vdcitdni (35.7), icchdnarngalena instead of icchdnarngaldyd (35.13),
samanvesayati instead of samanvesaydmi (35.35), bhavati instead of bhavasi (35.36), anuprayac-
chati instead of anuprayacchatu (35.40), pravrajitah instead of pravrajati (39.23), etc.

236

Gudrun Melzer

sentences or even lines. Some may have already been in the master copy or in an
earlier copy; others can be explained as haplographies. The reader can be content
if he finds a remnant of an omitted word or phrase.^®

The following problematic passage, whose original reading and reconstruc¬
tion are quoted below, resisted a solution for quite a long time. The first problem is
that the most important finite verb, nagamayati “he does not wait”, was omitted.
Then the following aksara ma was confused for sa, which leads to the opposite
meaning (sagauravo “respectful” instead of -m agauravo “respectless”). Follow¬
ing this is the word pmtigaumyitavyam, but this word is not attested in any dic¬
tionary. It was probably created in analogy to {s)agaumvo, and must be corrected
to pratimantrayitavyam. Finally, the last verb reads in the third person plural,
although a singular ending is required.^®

Original Reading Reconstruction

sopanatka[s com].r. mamano ntarantara
katham utpadayati kathdparyavasdna
sagauravo pratlsah pratigaurayitavyam
ma[n]yante

“... walking around with shoes, talking from
time to time, the end of the talk..., he, who
is respectful and who is impolite; they intend
to ... ipratigaurayitavyaml)’’

sopanatkas cani(k)ria)nianidno 'ntarantara
katham utpadayati wdgamayath
kathdparyavasdnam agauravo 'pratlsah
pratimgntrgyitavyarn manya{n]te (35.21)

"... walking around with shoes, talking from
time to time, he does not await the end of the
talk [of his colleagues]. Being disrespectful and
impolite, he intends to oppose [the Buddha].”

Usually, in such cases one would first search for repetitions in the same text, since
repetitions are characteristic for this type of Buddhist literature. In this case, the
whole phrase should be repeated in the next line, as is evidenced by the context
and the Tibetan translation. But apparently the scribe omitted an entire line:^”

28 If a text is problematic and appears to have something added that is out of place, this most
likely indicates an omission, e.g. sramanoh sdkyaputtrah (“the ascetic, the Sakya son”): The ap¬
parently fitting correction of the word sramanoh to sramanah turns out to be incorrect. As can
be gleaned from other occurrences of this word group, a word has been omitted, of which only
the final visarga remains. The correct reading is: sramano <gautama>h sdkyaputtrah “the ascetic
Gautama, the Sakya son” (35.4).

29 The following conventions are used here: restorations in gaps (...); damaged aksara(s) [...];
omission of (a part of) an aksara without a gap in the manuscript <...>; superfluous (part of an)
aksara {...}.

30 For further comments on this passage, see the notes to my edition of 35.21 (Melzer 2010).

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

237

tvam tathagatasya vyam manyase (35.23) tvam tathagatasya (vrddhavrddhanam
“You intend to ... {vyaml) the Tathagata.” autkatandm brdhmandndm dharmydydm

kathdydm kathyamdndydm sopdnatkas
camkramamdno 'ntardntard kathdm utpddayasi
ndgamayasi kathdparyavasdnam agauravo
'pratlsah pratimantrayhawyam manyase

One of the most corrupt passages in the manuscript is found in the Prsthapalasutra,
where the text is hopelessly incomprehensible. Fortunately the topic of the four¬
teen questions left unanswered by the Buddha is well known from other sources:^^

sdsvato loka idam eva satyam mohasatyad
iti andsvatas cdsdsvatas ca naiva sdsvato
ndsdsvata • anantavdn antah anantavdn
antah anantavdmgd[s].[a].... vdms cd
naivdntavd ndnantavdn ma j'Tvas tac charlram
bhavati tathdgatah param marand na bhavati
bhavati ca na bhavati naiva bhavati na na
bhavati tathdgatah param maranod idam
e + + .y.tn mo .. satyad iti

sdsvato loka idam eva satyarn moham
anvad iti I atsdsvato lokah |> sdsvatas
cdsdsvatas ca <|> naiva sdsvato ndsdsvatah
I ian)antavdm loka h I anantavdm loka h I
{an}antavdm{gd}s {c)(.di{nanta)vdrns eg <|>
naivdntavdmi ndnantavdn <|> sgjivas tac
charlram I <anyo jivo ’nyac charlrarn |> bhavati
tathdgatah pararn marandm |> na bhavati <|>
bhavati ca na bhavati <ca |> naiva bhavati na na
bhavati tathdgatah pararn marandd idam e(va
saf)y(a)rn mo(ha)m anvad iti j (36.49)

The transiation of the corrected passage reads: The worid is eternai; oniy this is true, every¬
thing eise is faise. The worid is impermanent. [It] is eternal and impermanent. [It] is neither
eternal nor impermanent. The world is limited. The world is unlimited. [It] is limited and unlim¬
ited. [It] is neither limited nor unlimited. The jiva is the body. The jiva is something different
than the body. The Tathagata exists after death. [He] does not exist after death. [He] exists and
he does not exist. He neither exists nor does he not exist after death; only this is true, every¬
thing else is false.

The appearance at this point of this passage in the manuscript is also slightly
unexpected, as if perhaps a lengthier section has been omitted in the preced¬
ing part. It seems that the text of an earlier passage of the same Prsthapalasutra
(36.16) has been botched. Here the Buddha repeats an argument of his opponent
instead of saying that all the opinions of his opponents are false, which is indeed
a grave intrusion into the text.

31 For parallels and further details, see the notes to 36.49 in my edition. Avagrahas, daridas and
dotted daridas (if a sandhi was not completed between two vowels) are introduced for the conve¬
nience of the reader. Sandhis have been left as they occur in the manuscript. The reading of the
aksaras tya instead of nya, and malsa instead of salma is certain; however, it should be noted
that these aksaras have a similar shape.

238

Gudrun Melzer

Although the condition of the text is not as poor in all portions of the manu¬
script as these examples might imply, ten corruptions, including minor inconsis¬
tencies, in a single line are not an exception.

In two stitras a few folios are missing, but they have been discovered in a
later part of the manuscript, in the middle of another stitra. They were paginated
according to their new context (folios 442-445).

4 The manuscript’s scribes

A detailed analysis of the palaeography allows us to gain some insight into the
working process of the scribes. Even though the writing is a standardized cal¬
ligraphic script and it can be assumed that the scribes were all trained to write in
exactly the same manner, a closer look at the script reveals that several scribes
worked on this manuscript. Although for the untrained eye the shape of individ¬
ual aksams of the different scribes often resembles one another, there are other
indications that allow us to distinguish between the different hands. The main
characteristics of the individual hands is evident in the general appearance of the
script, the ductus, the grade of evenness in the flow of strokes, the length and the
proportions of the aksaras, the different angles of slant of originally vertical lines,
the vddth of the vertical lines due to the different angles the pen might have been
held, or to slightly varying sizes of the nib, the accuracy of the straight head lines,
the frequency of impurities due to putting the pen down or to the birch-bark, and
finally, tendencies for preferences of certain aksara shapes, e.g. for the aksams ya
and ha. The aksara ya has two different forms: one is the established tripartite old
type («lf «>^) and the other a more recent form ('a|), extant in Indian inscriptions
from the end of the d*** century onwards.^^ A similar case can be observed with the
aksara ha. While type 1 (t^) can be related to the older script GB 1, type 2 is not
necessarily later (t^). However, it was only introduced in the greater Gilgit area
in the 7**^ century, whereupon it gradually replaced the older type. It remained
unchanged in the Sarada script of Kashmir until only recently. In the ligature
hma, some scribes prefer the newly shaped ha, others do not. Occasionally, the
frequent occurrence of jihvdmuliyas and upadhmanvyas, or of the old ya form is
conspicuous. This may go back to the influence of the master copy, or to the readi¬
ness of the scribe to replace these forms.

There are also two varieties of adding the diacritic -a to the aksara sa: either
as a long horizontal stroke dravm from the left vertical to the right side of sa

32 Sander 1968,160f.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

239

or as a small hook added at the right CV). Some scribes preferred the
first form, while others frequently switched from one form to the other. Even if a
scribe appears to be consistent through several pages of the manuscript, there is
absolutely no certainty that he will not write the other form later, be it because
of a lack of concentration or for other unknovm reasons. The most important
characteristics of the scribes’ writing of individual aksaras and diacritic vowels
are listed in the table below. The examples and details for scribes A and C-F are
mostly taken from folios 410-430.

Scribe A (Figure 4)

The main characteristic of this scribe becomes evident when examining the upper
horizontal strokes of the aksaras, which are never straight. He begins to write
them slightly below the line under which the aksaras are written, in all Brahmi
scripts. Therefore the upper horizontal strokes of the aksaras are slightly ascend¬
ing, and the head line seems a little shaky or slightly serrated, resembling a zigzag
(marked on Figure 4). This characteristic seems consistent and is typical for this
scribe. The second conspicuous feature is the existence of numerous impurities
that have often been unintentionally added when placing the pen on the birch-
bark or putting it down (also marked on Figure 4). In contrast to the other scribes,
the empty spaces between joined lines of certain aksaras are very narrow, prob¬
ably due to the use of a pen with a broad nib. This is especially obvious with ka,

Fig- 4: Detail of 412v, by scribe A

240

Gudrun Melzer

va, tha, sa and sa. Vertical strokes often taper off elegantly at their lower end, a
characteristic shared with the scribes C and

Scribe C (Figure 5)

The shape of the aksaras of scribe C is often similar to scribe A, however in con¬
trast to scribe A, C’s handwriting is characterised by a clear and even flow of
lines. All aksaras are carefully placed below the upper line. Quite different from
scribe A, their heads are written as even, almost straight strokes. Unintentional
impurities occur much more rarely and also less prominently. The alignment of
the script is nearly vertical, but because the diacritic -i often slants to the lower
left, it gives the false impression that all the aksaras slant slightly to the lower
left. Most verticals taper off, as do those of scribe A. In a few cases, the same can
be observed with the diacritic -i.

Fig. 5: Detail of A13r, by scribe C

33 In a number of cases it can be observed that these tapering ends are not directly the exten¬
sion of the vertical, but were added later with a second stroke. -1 have retained the names of the
scribes as they occur in my dissertation. For a difficult section with regard to the scribes, called
“section B” (folios 442-444), see Melzer 2010, 73-74.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

241

Fig- 6: Detaii of A21v, by scribe D

Scribe D (Figure 6)

The script of scribe D is stocky and uneven. The aksaras are shorter than those
of the other scribes, and they lack the long elegant extensions at the foot that
are characteristic for scribes A, C and G. The vertical lines are often not paral¬
lel, creating an unbalanced appearance (marked on Figure 6). The head lines are
also not as straight as those of scribes C and E, and there are many unintentional
impurities. A further characteristic are the knotted ends of the diacritics -e, -o, -ai,
and -au (f* nto ^ mai ^ lai ^ sau).

Scribe E (Figure 7)

Since the fluent script of scribe E contrasts vyith all other hands in several respects,
it is the easiest one to recognize. The eye of the reader is caught in particular by
the slant of the vertical strokes to the lovyer left and the rounded forms, especially
of the diacritics -i and -i, of the subscribed -y- and also of subscribed aksaras such
as -tha, -dha, and -va, which the other scribes write, in contrast to scribe E, at
acute angles. The shape of ta is also noteworthy, with its extremely short left leg
(T). The upper edge of the left leg of ta and also of the triangular shapes of bha (^)
and ka (^) are almost horizontal. This feature is almost nonexistent in the rest of
the manuscript. Due to the fluent character of the script, the ends of the verticals
are not as elegantly lengthened as those of scribes A, C, F and G. In comparison
with the other scribes, the use of the otherwise rare conjunct signs nca, nsi, ssa

242

Gudrun Melzer

and ssd on folios 424-429 is conspicuous, as well as the frequent occurrence of
the jihvdmuliya (thirty times on ff. 424-429) and upadhmanlya (five times).

Fig- 7: Detail of 429v, by scribe E

Scribe F (Figure 8)

Scribe F shares many characteristics with scribe A, but there also seem to be
some differences. At first glance his writing also seems similar to that of scribe
C, although F’s aksaras are never lined up as carefully. This handwriting must
still be examined more carefully to exclude the possibility that F might be the
same person as A, using a re-cut pen or a new pen with a smaller nib. Despite of
these uncertainties, F has been included here for the sake of completeness, even
though his handwriting cannot yet be discussed in detail. The variant of the dia¬
critic -i extending downwards to the right of consonants occurs more frequently
than with scribe A. Unintentional impurities are also visible, although they are
less prominent than with A. The space between the aksaras is on average vdder
than that of scribe A. In particular, he shares vdth A the uneven zigzag of the
head line. The middle line of the -cha is nearly horizontal (^ cchd). The old ya is
testified at least in yu (^). Type 1 of ha occurs mainly in the conjunct sign hma
(■^ ■^). Otherwise, the type 2 of ha predominates. The subscribed -pa in tpa and
Ipa is written without a head-mark.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

243

Fig. 8: Detaii of 430r, by scribe F

Fig. 9: Detaii of 329r, by scribe G

Scribe G (Figure 9)

Scribe G prefers a very thin nib. For this reason, the inner spaces betwreen joined
lines in aksams like ka, dha, va, etc. are relatively vyide. Very thin diagonals, espe¬
cially those of the aksara ca ^), are often broken, as if the svdftly moved nib

if#

244

Gudrun Melzer

lost contact with the birch-bark. The triangular-shaped rightward extension rep¬
resenting the diacritic -a, -o or -au frequently shows an indentation on the right
that was carefully avoided by the other scribes (e.g., gdTf pd pau yd
^ ro rsyo). Sometimes the diacritic -d reaches down almost to the bottom of
the consonant sign (3(f yd ^ vd).

Tab. 1: Comparison of selected aksaras of the different scribes

Scribe A

Scribe C

Scribe D

Scribe E

Scribe G

ki gi hni ci
ji ni bhi ri

cci ndi nri rvi

rsi si sti

hirbhi

ti dhi pi rji

ci ti ti thi
di ni pi vi

The different hands become especially evident in the writing of the diacritic vowel
signs -/ and In the case of scribes A and C, the -/ reaches vertically down to around
two-thirds of the height of the (upper) consonant sign. The final tip of the -/ of scribe
A points only exceptionally slightly to the right (cf.//, bhi). While the alignment of
the aksaras of scribe C is nearly vertical, the -/ shows in many cases a slant to the
lower left. The vertical part of the -/ of scribe D also slants frequently to the lower
left and its length is not uniform. In contrast to all the other scribes, scribe E writes
the upper part of the -/ more rounded instead of with an acute angle, and the vertical
part is more or less aligned along the outer curve of the consonant sign, with the
end tapering gradually. Scribe G offers a range of variants for -/, showing differences
in height and length. The vertical usually slants to the lower left, and in several
instances the lower end curls to the right. This scribe also gave much more space
between the consonant sign and the vertical of the -/.

kl gl ni ti

khl ghJ jl jjl ni

ksl jl tl pi

cl tl thl pi bhi

cl nl tl Urn

nJ nl

dl nlrn ml rl si

11 si si hi

rl si si svi hi

In many cases the -/diacritic of scribes A and C does not exceed the width of the
consonant sign. It is drawn vertically down the right side of the consonant sign only
at the end of lines. Scribe D writes -/in several different shapes, and only very occa¬
sionally is it as wide as the consonant sign. It is often drawn much higher than by
the other scribes. Scribe E usually extends the -/vertically down to the bottom of the
consonant sign, where it ends in a thin tail slightly curved to the right. Similar forms
are sometimes employed by scribe G. Otherwise he writes the -/in the same manner
as scribes A and C, but less evenly.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

245

Scribe A

Scribe C

Scribe D

Scribe E

Scribe G

■cha

ccha

ccha cchra

ccha cchi cche

The scribes appear to be consistent in writingthe middle stroke of the subscribed
■cha either slanting slightly to the upper right (scribe A), horizontally (scribes E, G)
or diagonally (scribes C, D).

ar«ir^

3(3?

ya ye

yo ya yu ye

yo yo yi

yo ya

Scribes A, C and G oniy use the modern form. Scribe D generaiiy writes the modern
form, but in one section of around four foiios (417rl-3 up to the string-hoie,
419r3-v, 421v, 422rl-2, 423v) he uses the oid tripartite type six times for yu, and
once for yo. The same appiies to scribe E, who uses the traditionaiiy shaped yo four
times foryo and once for yi, e.g. on foiios 424-429. On a rare occasion, scribe F
uses the oid form in yu.

-ya

kya khye nyo
nyo myo syo

pyo ksyd ksye
syo syoi

jya dyo

cyd tsyd pyo

vyu syo

pyo pyo syo /yd
dhya nya

The shape of the subscribed -yo aiso differs between the scribes. Scribe A aiways
cioses it on the right side with a thick stroke. Scribe C cioses it often, aithough with
a thin tapering iine, whiie scribe D usuaiiy cioses it with a thick stroke (but some¬
times ieaves it open). Scribe E ieaves it open, and since round forms are characteris¬
tic for this scribe, the iower part is aiso much more curved. Scribe G differs in that he
frequentiy writes the right ciosing stroke as a straight iine, forming an acute angie.
The other scribes write this part as softiy rounded curve.

■pa, ■ma ^

fpd tpJ Ipa hma

Ipa hma

tpa hma

fpd Ipa hma

hma hma

In conjunct signs with the subscribed consonant signs -pa and -ma, scribe A (and F)
prefers to write them without a head-mark. Scribes E and G use the variant lacking
a head-mark only occasionally, while scribes C and D usually write head-marks.
Especially interesting is the use of h- in the conjunct sign hma. In general, scribes A
and D write type 1 for h-, with type 2 is rather rare, while scribes C, E, and G use only
type 2.

•»(*

ha ha ha hu hau hva hye

ha hi hu

ha hlhu he

For ha, scribes A, D and F use type 1 and 2 indiscriminately, whereas scribes C, E and
G use only type 2.

246

Gudrun Melzer

There are also many other differences in the individual aksaras. For example,
there are two wrays the diacritic -a is attached to the consonant sign ta. Extend¬
ing from the right of the head-mark, it has been v^ritten either bent down
scribes A, G) or bent up (^: scribes C, F).^'' In the case of the consonant sign sa,
the diacritic -d is attached either to the right vertical stroke of sa C^) or to the
left scribes C, D, G). Scribes A, E and F use both styles, although scribe E

prefers attaching the -d to the left vertical stroke. Scribe G attaches both variants
of -d also to the modern shaped ya (3^ 3(f). The right stroke of the triangular e
is written vertically only by scribe A C^), while with the other scribes it slants
(T). Scribes C and D occasionally round the upper left corner (T). The triangular¬
shaped subscribed consonant signs va, tha, and dha are written in acute angles
by scribes A, C, F and G '5 ddha, ^ stho), but more rounded on the left side
by scribe E stha, ^ vdhe, ^ nva ^ sva). Scribe D uses both variants. The size
of the space between loops, as with ka, dha, va and sa differs from one scribe to
the other. Scribe A has the smallest, while scribe G often lapses into the other
extreme. Finally, the different hands can also be identified based on preferences
in writing the virdma, although even the same scribe often uses many differ¬
ent shapes. The diagonal line is sometimes placed slightly above the upper line
(4v m*, ^ t*: scribe A), although it is usually together with the upper line t*
^ f* n* ■V m*: scribe C). In some cases it also starts above the upper line and
extends only slightly, if at all, beneath it f*: scribe D). Scribe E attaches the
virdma stroke to the consonant sign ('^ ^ m*). Scribe G prefers a different variant,
with a horizontal stroke on the top m*), but he also uses other forms. This
variant is also found occasionally in the writing of scribes A and C m*).

5 Results of the palaeographical examinations

It was not without reason that a great deal of stress has been given to describ¬
ing small details. What a palaeographically trained eye sees on an enlarged
digital image becomes much less evident when the folio is viewed as a whole,
or when the text is read mainly for understanding. If all our observations are
taken together, some astonishing insights can be gleaned. First, it is probable
that the so-called “Leit-a/csaras” ya and ha should only be considered indicators
of a likely early date with reservation. At the time of our manuscript, most of its
scribes (A, C, G) only used the newly introduced type ya. However, scribes D, E

34 The same possibilities exist for the consonant sign na. This still needs to be examined
throughout the manuscript.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

247

and rarely F also used the old tripartite type in addition to the modern ya. Scribe
D wrote the old type more often in combination with the vowel -u. With regard
to the two types of ha, scribe A, who used the modern ya, also used the newly
introduced type 2 of ha, but not exclusively: he also used type 1, especially in liga¬
tures. Similarly, scribes D and F used both types of ha. However, scribes C, E and
G only wrote the new form, even in ligatures. Since scribe E also used the old ya,
the only scribes who exclusively used the modern forms of ya and ha are scribes
C and G. If one were to date possible other manuscripts produced by scribes C
and G only on the basis of these aksaras, one would be tempted to regard them
as later than those of the other scribes! There cannot be enough care invested in
interpreting such fine differences. It should also be kept in mind that the influ¬
ence of master copies may have been stronger in some places than in others, and
so-called transitional periods, during which later and younger shapes of certain
aksaras were being introduced, may have lasted much longer than previously
thought. In general, occurrences of variant aksaras can only be counted statisti¬
cally, and should never be used as the sole indicator for differentiating between
several scribes or for dating.

During the Copenhagen Workshop (2007), it was suggested that the manu¬
script may have been repaired at a later point in time, and that several pages
were then replaced. This could explain the discrepancies in the preference of old
and new shapes. However, if the distribution of the scribes throughout the manu¬
script is examined, it can be shown that this was certainly not the case (Table 2).^^

The Dlrghagama manuscript was written by at least five to six persons. They
probably worked in part simultaneously on different sections of the manuscripts,
taking turns in irregular intervals. A single scribe may have written portions of
only a few lines, or up to thirty-three successive folios. For example, in a section
of twenty-one folios (410-430), which was written by five different people, the
scribes changed not less than ten times.

Every scribe seems to have used his own pen, as can be gleaned from the dif¬
ferent nib widths. The exact composition of the ink also varies in the manuscript.
While the ink on folios 405-412 of scribe A, for example, is very dark, the ink of

35 This table is not yet complete. To attribute scribes to all of the leaves, an edition of the entire
Dlrghagama is first needed. Many folios are damaged on the left side and thus, the pagination
is lost. Included in this table are only those leaves whose sequence and scribe is quite certain.
The first four numbers in square brackets refer to the numbering on the black and white photo¬
graphs where the pagination is not preserved. I am grateful to Takamichi Fukita for sharing his
reconstructions of the highly fragmented folios of the first part of the manuscript. Blair Silverlock
kindly informed me of his identification of scribe C for folios 340v-341r. The attribution of folios
330-384 is difficult because of the inferior quality of the available photographs.

248

Gudrun Melzer

Tab. 2: Distribution of the different scribes throughout the Dirghagama manuscript

Scribe A/F Scribe C

Scribe D

Scribe A/F

Scribe C Scribe D

Scribe E

Scribe G

[32R]

284v

[32verso]

287-319

OAR]

327-340r

[34verso]

340v-341r?

80-95

341V-354?

96-118r?

355-368

262r

369

262v

370-376

269

377

271

378

272r

379-389

272v

390

273r

405-412

TTiM

413-416

274r

417rl-3

(string-hole)

ni\M

417r3 (string-
hole)-419r2

275r

419r3-v

275m

420-421r

277r

421v-422r2

277m

422r3-423r

278r

423v

278v

424-429

279r

430-441

279m

443

281-282r

445

282v

446-449

283r

450-451

283v-284r

452-454?

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

249

the folios 424-429 of scribe E seems to have been thinner and more transparent,
which also allowed for a more fluid handwriting.

Scribes C and G, who are most consistent in using the new forms for ya and
ha, sometimes start on the verso of a folio, or end on a recto whose verso has been
written by somebody else. It is therefore impossible to consider these parts later
restorations, even if one disregards the fact that the manuscript does not show
any traces of use. The few interlinear additions written with another pen (or with
the turned edge of the same nib?) were most probably written by the same scribes,
and surely not long after the folio or the manuscript was completed.

As can also be observed on the Vinayavastvdgama manuscript from Giigit,
on several pages, towards the end of the last line there are much wider spaces
between the aksams (Figure 10), or they are vnritten much closer together than
usual (Figure 1).^® This indicates that the folio’s text was copied in close agree¬
ment with the layout of the original, especially with regard to the end of the
pages.Occasionally, line fillers (Figures lOb-c, f) conclude lines where the text
has ended before the right margin.^® In a few other cases, the last aksams have
been deleted and are written on the following page (Figure lOc-e). This was prob¬
ably meant to conceal the fact that the last line ended earlier than the right margin
of the original.^® If it is assumed that several scribes worked on the manuscript
simultaneously, ending pages or folios in close correspondence to the original
would have been of utmost importance. However, it is uncertain whether every
page corresponded in this manner, or only some of them. Also, the script itself
provides a good means for concealing omissions in the text, or attempts to keep to
the lines of the original. For example, if needed it is possible to write certain con¬
sonant signs, for example na, with the vowel diacritic -o twice as wide as normal.
The horizontal extensions can be either attached to the right and to the left (^),
or to the right and on the top ('3^), or, much rarer, only on the top (^).

One of the most surprising discoveries is the teamwork of scribes C and D, at
least in two sections of the manuscript (folios 262-284 and 413-423). Very often,
one scribe wrote the recto while the other was responsible for the verso. In the

36 For examples from the Vinayavastvagama manuscript, see the folios from the Sanghabhedava-
stu: 349, 384v, 408v, 430v, 431v, 476v, from GBM; 682, 712, 715, 727, 745, 754, 791, 876, 899 and 1021.
For the other extreme, see 419r, 423v (Dlrghdgama) and GBM 959 (Vinayavastvdgama).

37 Hartmann 2002a, 145.

38 Line fillers can also be found in many other Buddhist manuscripts; see, e.g., Sander 1988,547.
For examples from the Vinayavastvdgama manuscript from Giigit, see folios 72v (GBM 727), 282v
(GBM 877), 308v (GBM 929), 333r (Sanghahhedavastu).

39 See, e.g., folios 404v, 417v, 419v and 425v. For an example from the Vinayavastvdgama manu¬
script, see folio 293v (Yamagiwa 2001, 78).

250 - Gudrun Melzer

Fig. 10: Examples of text justification on the folio: (a) 392v7-8 (b) 396v7-8 (c) 40Av7-8 (d)
417V7-8 (e) A25v7-8 (f) 427v7-8

latter section, scribe D has written two and a half lines on 417r. His partner C
finished the rest of 417r and continued until 419r2. Scribe D then took his turn
from 419r3 and continued to the verso. Scribe C wrote 420-421r and 422r3-423r,
while scribe D completed 421v-422r2 and 423v. How can we imagine their working

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the digit Region

251

process? Were they sitting next to each other, with one writing half a folio and then
passing it on to his colleague to complete? In this case, the relevant folio(s) of the
master copy would also have to be passed on (and turned over). When the second
scribe finished his part, he would have placed the finished folios aside, while in
the meantime the next folio(s) may have already been waiting for him. If in such
a situation the first scribe did not finish exactly with the end of the page of the
master copy, he would have had to show his colleague where to continue. It is easy
to imagine how chaotic and confusing this might become. And indeed, most prob¬
ably did become. For example, the last folio by scribe A after folio 412 and also the
two subsequent folios (by other scribes) have been mistakenly inserted into a later
part of the manuscript, where they were numbered according to their new context
as 443, 442 and 444, when the final pagination was added.'"’ The text of folio 444
continues on the folio paginated as 413, in the hand of scribe C. How exactly the
misplacement of the three folios happened cannot be ascertained, but it might be
explained by the fact that several scribes were working simultaneously.

Another imaginable working procedure of the two scribes C and D would be
that they switched places several times (for whatever reason). This would have
had the advantage that single folios could stay in their context and would not
have to be passed around. In any case, the actual procedure cannot be recon¬
structed with absolute certainty. But the manuscript evidences that scribal errors
are much more frequent in parts where the scribes changed often. This leads us
back to the starting point; those passages that are highly corrupt.

The unclear passage of the Prsthapdlasutm mentioned above briefly
(ed. 36.16), in which it appears that the opponents of the Buddha, the parivra-
jakas, anticipate a later argument of the Buddha where no parallel for such an
anticipation can be found in the Pali or Chinese versions, happens to fall directly
at the break at the end of the two and a half lines written by scribe D on 417rl-3
and the beginning of the work by scribe C.'*^ The next exchange of scribes occurs
at 419r3, with scribe D. This is also where one of the most corrupted passages
starts (as referred to above, ed. 36.49). Scribe D apparently had no context for his
portion of the text, and therefore he has even mistaken aksaras that are otherwise
rarely misread, such as sa and ma {mohasatya-, “truth of delusion” instead of
moham anya-, “everything else is false”, etc.). The switching of folios between
scribes that follows, however, went on without larger problems.

As enigmatic as the working praxis of this scribe duo may be, a similar
case has been noticed by Lore Sander for a central Asian manuscript of the

40 The attribution of folios 442 and 444 is not yet settled.

41 Scribe C continued in the middle of the sentence. The error might, of course, already have
been in the master copy, but the change of scribes is suggestive.

252

Gudrun Melzer

Siddhasdra from Dunhuang,'*^ and it is certain that there are further cases still
waiting to be discovered. It is also certain that the voluminous manuscript of the
Vinayavastvdgama from Gilgit was written by more than one person. Even in the
poor photos of the facsimile edition, it is possible to differentiate at least one
scribe from the others, because of his obvious characteristics as well as his simi¬
larities to scribe E of the Dlrghdgama manuscript. In the Vinayavastvdgama, this
scribe wrote two parts of four folios, and one part of fifteen and a half folios.''^

In general, information about scribes of manuscripts and inscriptions is rare
in Gilgit. For all the known Gilgit manuscripts, the names of only two scribes
are mentioned in colophons; however, both belong to an earlier period of man¬
uscript production that is not being discussed here.'*'* Their ethnic affiliation
remains mostly unsolved. Oskar von Hiniiber has suggested that Saken scribes
were responsible for one of the manuscripts he has studied.''^ But until now, the
manuscript of the Dlrghdgama has not yet revealed any clues about the ethnic or
linguistic affiliation of the scribes. Nonetheless, as described above it is possible
to learn something about their working praxis.

6 A second pagination system

Thus far, we have only considered the style of the script and the shape of particu¬
lar aksaras. But another interesting detail becomes visible on enlarged images:
Many folios contain a very tiny and sometimes almost invisible number that
differs from the main page number and which was written either to the extreme
left or right (Figure 11). Since the margins are frequently damaged, not all of these
numbers are preserved. However, there are also many folios of the manuscript
that do not appear to have been numbered in this way. Several sequences of
numbers exist, starting in irregular intervals with number 1 and running up to
33 at the most. These numbers were not inserted for the benefit of readers of the
manuscript. It rather appears that the scribes have marked their respective por¬
tions in this manner before the final page numbers were added. Thus, scribe C

42 Sander 1988, 547-548.

43 These similarities do not necessarily imply that the scribe is identical with E. Further re¬
search is required. See folios 258-274r (GBM 828-860), 294-297 (GBM 900-907), 340v-344v
(Sanghabhedavastu).

44 For the two scribes of the Ajitasenavydkarana and a Samghdtasutra (dated in the year 3 of
presumably the Laukika Era, 627128 CE) see von Hiniiber 1980, 63-64, 69-72; 2004, 25-27 (Nr. 10),
78-80 (Nr. 39B).

45 Von Hiniiber 1980, 51; 1983, 58-59; 1988, 43.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

253

has marked his portion of folios 287-319 with numbers 1-33. Scribe A marked
his folios 370-376 with numbers 1-7.'“’ Scribe D numbered folios 379-389 up to
number 11.''^ Interestingly, C and D, who were identified above as working in close
cooperation, applied a single joint numbering system starting on folio 413 and
ending on folio 423 with number ll.'*® This is the part of the text that directly
follows the vnrongly placed folios 442-444, which lack such numbers. It can be
assumed that using these additional numbers was originally meant to prevent
such confusions. Scribe E numbered his folios 424-429 from 1 to 6. Scribe F (?)
numbered his portion of folios 430-441 from 1 to 12,'*® and finally, scribe E num¬
bered his last portion of the two folios 450-451 accordingly with numbers 1-2.
All scribes but E wrote the numerals in the extreme left margin next to lines 7-8.
Scribe E wrote them in the right margin next to the same lines.

In contrast to the main page numbers written according to the old system of
addition, with special symbols for twenty, thirty, a hundred, etc., for the small
numbers of the individual scribes, the newly introduced place-value system was
used, with symbols for the numbers one to nine, and a small circle symbolising
zero. This system, along with the shapes of the numerals, became widely popular
in Indian and Southeast Asian inscriptions during the 7* century, and by the
middle of the 9‘*' century in inscriptions it had replaced the old system. It also
occurs in the inscriptions of the Palola Sahis of Giigit and their contemporaries
from the second half of the 7* century onwards.^” Until today, it is still not pre¬
cisely known when and where this new system started.The shape of the numer¬
als can be explained for the most part as being a very cursive and economical
variant of writing Indian Brahmi numerals. It is quite different from the ornate
type of letter numerals used for paginating Buddhist manuscripts in the numeri¬
cal system of addition.

The numerals on the Giigit manuscripts have been studied by Hanns-Peter
Frentz. He has also referred to manuscripts that were not published in the fac¬
simile edition, especially those from Srinagar. His material clearly shows that
pagination according to the old system of addition continued to be used in Giigit
long after the place-value system is found in inscriptions. Thus far, only three

46 The margin containing numeral 1 is not preserved.

47 Only the numeral 10 and part of 11 are preserved. There are also traces on 383r and 383r vis¬
ible. Regrettably, the available photographs of the Hirayama Collection do not enable us to see
such small details clearly.

48 The last folio lacks a number because the margin is damaged.

49 Only the numerals on the first and last folio are preserved.

50 For the inscriptions, see appendix 1.

51 For this system in general, see Frentz 1987, 66-68 and Salomon 1998, 61-63.

Gudrun Melzer

254 -

% I

‘ ^
■A^~

310r 414r 415r 417r 418r

24 2 3 5 6

Fig. 11: Examples of a secondary pagination system, beneath the main folio numbers

exceptions are known.When comparing the shapes of the numerals of these
three manuscripts with the tiny numerals of the Dlrghagama manuscript, several
differences are noticeable. It seems that during the first hundred to two hundred
years after the introduction of the new system, a stylistic development took place
that has hardly been explored. On one hand, the numerals of the Dlrghagama
manuscript show similarities with the medieval predecessors of our so-called
Arabian numerals. On the other hand, not all of them can easily be found in pal-
aeographic tables for ancient Indian scripts.

52 Frentz 1987, 6. The first of the three exceptions are fifteen folios of a Samghdtasutra written in
probably an early type of GB2/PS (Ser. no. 39; Frentz 1987, 125-126; GBM 2306-2325, 2326-2335).
The second one comprises four leaves of the Ddrikdgdthds (Frentz 1987,147; GBM 3229-3236). And
finally, there are a few folios out of a total of 121 folios from another Samghdtasutra in early GB2/
PS from Srinagar (“Manuscript D” in von Hiniiber 1980, 69-72; 1983, 53; 2004, 25-27, 31, Nr. 10
[previously “manuscript A” in von Hiniiber 1979, 351]; see also Frentz 1987,127-130). In the latter
manuscript, both numeral systems can be found, in alternating series.

53 In addition to the important but unpublished study by Frentz, some Gilgit numerals are also
reproduced in Sander 1968, Tafel 26, and Wille 1990, 20. Salomon 1998, 61 mentioned the dif¬
ficulties in reading the numerals of the new system correctly.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

255

It appeared therefore advisable to collect evidence of early place-value
system numerals from the larger Giigit area. The follovdng table includes all
the Dlrghagama numerals, the fevy Giigit examples studied by Frentz,^'* and the
numerals found in inscriptions.^^ Recently, Klaus Wille and Masanori Shono also
discovered six tiny numerals wrritten in addition to the main pagination on a fevy
fragments of a Pratimoksasutra and a Vinayavibhanga manuscript belonging to
the same find as the Dlrghagama.^^ Unfortunately, the quality of the facsimile
edition of the Giigit manuscripts is not adequate to ascertain if perhaps similar
numbers can be found in the Vinayavastvdgama manuscript. For comparison,
several forms of the numerals of the famous Bakhshali manuscript, a text on
mathematics, are also included in the table.

The numerals of the Dlrghagama were vyritten in haste and vyithout special
care. The shape of the 4 in the Dlrghagama manuscript is especially notevyorthy,
since it differs from all the other examples vyith its simple economic form and the
loop at the bottom.^® In general, the shapes of the Dlrghagama numerals appear
to be more cursive than the numerals in most inscriptions or in the later Bakhshali
manuscript. This is also testified by the simpler vyriting of the numeral 5, vyith no
embellishment at the upper part. It is possible that such differences correspond
to geographical or chronological differences. From the time of the Dlrghagama
manuscript onvyards, however, the shapes did not alter greatly, remaining basi¬
cally the same in the Sarada script of the region even until recently.^®

54 Frentz 1987, 66-70.

55 The inscriptions are referred to as they are numbered in appendix I of this article.

56 These manuscripts are written in GB 2/PS. I am grateful to Klaus Wille and Masanori Shono
for sharing their discoveries.

57 The examples of the numerals are based on the facsimiles in Hayashi 1995. This birch-bark
manuscript was found in 1881 by a peasant in the village of Bakhshali, situated around 80 km
northeast of Peshawar (Hayashi 1995, 3). It is now kept in the Bodleian Library of Oxford (Ms.
Sansk. d. 14). Regarding the date, Hayashi proposes the 8'*'-12*^ centuries (ibid.) or the 12'*' cen¬
tury as the upper limit (p. 24). He does not mention the manuscript’s similarity to the late Giigit
manuscripts. The 12'*' century is favoured by Kaul Deambi (1982, 67,82; 2008,51). In a short entry
in Walker/Clapinson/Forbes 2004, 137, a date of the 10'*'-12'*’ centuries is given. For supporting
palaeographical arguments for this date, see appendix II. The manuscript was already known to
Biihler (1896, 78-79, Tafel IX), who referred to it in his palaeographical tables.

58 Cf. Frentz 1987, 21, variant 1-2.

59 For the numerals in the Sarada script of later manuscripts, see, e.g. Slaje 1993, 46. The tables
of Kaul Deambi (1982, table 7; 2008, table 6) mainly concern the inscriptional evidence. However,
they are very incomplete for the early period and contain some obvious errors.

256

Gudrun Melzer

Tab. 3: Place-value number system In manuscripts and Inscriptions

Scribes of the Dirghagama

Pratirnoksasutra /
Vinayavibhanga

C+D

A/F

A/F E

(l)ia

(287?)

297

307

389

413

424

430

(A50)

(288?)

298

308

371

414

441 451

24[9]

■'V

[33]‘=

389/90

29[9]

309

319

372

415

240

[4]a

[Aja

300

310

373

382

427

251

N'k

vyv

[5]a

291

(301?)

311

374

383

417

428

242

-scT

292

(302?)

312

375

[Aid 8)

(A)29

520

(29)3

(3)03

313

37[6]

294

(304?)

314

NCr

295

(305?)

315

421

*»•

[296]

306

(316)

388

422?^

a Only partly preserved, b Probably misspelt, c Fragment on folio 424r. d The lower part Is damaged.

7 Sanskritisation and punctuation

If one imagines a text in a European language with half of the punctuation and
most of the capitalization lacking, as well as some punctuation marks appearing
in the wrong places, it becomes clear that for many passages, different possibili¬
ties in understanding would arise. One would most likely puzzle over the meaning
of the text, even if one were generally familiar with it. A similar situation is found
in certain prose passages in Indian manuscripts containing canonical Buddhist
texts of the (Mula-)Sarvastivadins. Although canonical Buddhist texts are highly
formulaic and contain numerous repetitions, difficulties in understanding may

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

257

Inscriptions

Giigit Mss. (Frentz)

Bakhshali Manu-

script

•i

TOO

11.

12.

15.

§ %

€

% ^ ^ ^ %

H ^ m;

St)

12.

12. 13. 13. 15.

Vs ^ ^ ^

n 0^ a

15.

(5^

«5i <3) Cl

11.

12.

14.

•

arise when the text contains unusual phrases. It can be assumed that if a text
was not clearly structured and therefore not immediately accessible to a reader,
scribal errors and misunderstandings of the original may have occurred more fre¬
quently, especially when the tradition of the scribes themselves was already quite
distant from the texts they were copying.

The state of the text we find in manuscripts such as the Dlrghagama may in
part be explained by the process of copying and its sanskritisation over a longer
period of time. Originally, Buddhist texts were transmitted orally. But they were
also written down from an early period onwards, and these manuscripts were

258

Gudrun Melzer

copied again and again.®” However, the tradition of transmitting texts orally did
not cease.

Over time, the language of Buddhist texts gradually changed. When Sanskrit
as a universal language for Indian literature became widely established, some
Buddhist schools started to adjust their texts to this language, without translat¬
ing them per se. The Mahasamghikas, for example, transmitted their texts in
a hybrid form of Sanskrit (Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit). The Sarvastivadins (and
Mulasarvastivadins), however, rendered their texts in a language that resembles
classical Sanskrit much more closely. Still, the language of one of the oldest
Sarvastivada manuscripts identified so far is very different from the “classical”
Sanskrit of later Sarvastivada texts.Many irregularities in Buddhist Sanskrit
texts can be seen in connection with this gradual process of sanskritisation,
even in late manuscripts such as the Dlrghagama. Who would have been respon¬
sible for the sanskritisation of such texts if not those who wrote and copied the
manuscripts? Final consonants of case endings, for example, were added, and
the sandhi was adjusted as required in classical Sanskrit. Since this was never
done consistently, the peculiar situation arises in which correct Sanskrit endings
stand alongside forms that by the time of the Dlrghagama manuscript must have
already been regarded as antiquated or incorrect. Thus, an editor of such texts
easily finds him- or herself in a moral dilemma.

A typical feature of Buddhist texts that originated in middle Indian languages
is that the words were often not connected by means of sandhi. Such incomplete
sandhi is also testified in many places in the Dlrghagama manuscript, in particu¬
lar between the members of enumerations or at syntactical breaks, especially at
the end of sentences.®^ In many other cases, however, at a certain point in the
transmission of such manuscripts, the scribes adjusted such occurrences accord¬
ing to the general rules of Sanskrit, whereby they did not insert punctuation
marks at the end of sentences. In examples where the same text is found in other
manuscripts of the same school, but from a different place or period, most of the
differences concern complete or incomplete sandhi and punctuation marks. The
loss of an incomplete sandhi at the end of a sentence requires strong efforts on the

60 The most ancient manuscripts known so far date to the P* century BCE.

61 See Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya 1999-2000, part 1-5.

62 The oldest manuscripts written in Brahmi have spaces between words or word groups (al¬
though not consistently). See, e.g. an early Prajndpdramitd manuscript (Sander 2000,2, pis. 1.1-7;
2002, pis. IV.1-3) and an early commentary (Schmithausen 2002, pis. XIII.1-3) dating from the
end of the Kusana period to the beginning of the Gupta period, or the slightly later Bairam Ali
manuscripts. Such spaces can also be found in some of the oldest Indian inscriptions, e.g. the
Asoka pillar inscription in Lumbini. Later, in subsequent manuscript copies, the spaces have
been removed, although punctuation marks have not necessarily been inserted.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

259

part of the reader. The less familiar he is with an archaic text, the more difficulties
he will have to understand its contents. Herein most certainly also lies one of the
problems that scribes of the 8**’ century had to face.

8 Historical aspects

A specific characteristic of the Dlrghagama manuscript is its numerous scribal
errors. They possibly hint to historical factors. The manuscript was surely never
read, and the string holes look new and unused. Like most manuscripts of the
(Mula-)Sarvastivada tradition from Giigit and Central Asia, it has no colophon
specifying donors.®^ Thus, the manuscript cannot be related to the “cult of the
book” of Mahayana Buddhism, or the related “business” of manuscript pro¬
duction. Many of the later manuscripts of famous Mahayana texts, such as the
Astasahasrikd Prajhaparamita, were proofread many times and meticulously cor¬
rected, as can be seen in many manuscripts from Eastern India dating mostly
from the century onwards. It is likely that our manuscript of the Dirghagama
was a copy meant for the book shelf of a (Mula-)Sarvastivada monastery, and
that it was presumably not intended to be used in connection with a curriculum.
There are also other indicators that the literature of the Agamas did not enjoy
widespread popularity in the religious life of the S*** century. (Mula-)Sarvastivada
texts are largely missing in Eastern India, although from inscriptions it is known
that the Mulasarvastivadins resided there. In all probability, the decision of the
Tibetans to translate only the Vinaya and not the Agamas is based on the relative
importance these texts had in India at the time. The Agama texts were no longer
urgently needed.*’'*

63 See Sander 1988, 534. The vinaya text from Bairam Alt (SI Merv 1) is an exception in this
respect: The Sarvastivada patron named Mitrasresthin wishes his own benefit as well as that
of others, and he also hopes that the ignorance of the scribe will perish. As seen in the pub¬
lished photograph, the text reads: likhavitam mitrasresthind vinayaddharena sarwastivddina
atmahita-.parahitdya : namo sarwabuddhdna || yendyam likhata sdstram tasya ajhdnaprahdnaya
bhavatu || * || (folio 21v2-4; cf. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya 1999-2000 (part 5), 15, fig. 4; Das Lo-
tossutra and seine Welt, cat. 29). Hartmann (2004b, 127, n. 21) has observed that this is the only
example of a Sarvastivada text in which the name of the school is mentioned.

64 Although a Tibetan translation of the Dirghdgama is mentioned in the dBa bzhed (Wangdu et
al., 2000, 89), not a trace of it has been found. A late example for the interest in the Dirghdgama
is testified by the Abhidharmakosadkopdyikd of the Nepalese scholar Samathadeva (Zhi gnas
lha). The commentary, which is only preserved in Tibetan translation, abounds with quotations
from the Agamas, including the Dirghdgama. It therefore represents a rich source for Agama
texts, which often lack an Indie original. However, many passages in the Tibetan translation are

260

Gudrun Melzer

In conclusion it may be said that even though the condition of the text as
preserved in the Dlrghagama manuscript occasionally causes difficulties for an
editor, it represents a valuable witness that testifies to the interplay of problems
inherited through the texts’ transmission, the astonishing working methods of
the scribes, as well as some historical aspects such as the lack of interest on the
Indian subcontinent of the 8* century in Agama literature. In addition, we have
gained some interesting insights into palaeographical matters concerning manu¬
scripts from the greater Gilgit area of this period.

Appendix I: Inscriptions from the greater Gilgit
region containing numerals of the place-value
system*'

1. Metal image of a Buddha in dharmacakrapravartanamudra from the year 70
((VCr”), Asvayuja su di 5 (C|^), donated by Ratnacitti.'’’’ Fussman has read “8”
instead of “5”, probably because of the similarity with the 8 of the old system
of addition; however, in comparison with all examples from the new system,
5 seems more likely.

2. Metal image of a Buddha in varadamudra from the year 92 (15'^). Bhadrapada
su di 14 (')9), donated by Veyatyasa (after von Hinuber).®^ The reading of the 4
is not certain because with the loop on the right side it differs from all knovm
forms.

3. Stone inscription in Hatun from the year 47 Pausya sukla 13 3).*^®

incomprehensible. The numerous corruptions may be due in part to misunderstandings on the
part of the translators; many seem to have originated in the Sanskrit manuscript used for the
translation, or even in the original work of the author (including incorrect titles). See Melzer
2010, 315-317.

65 It is generally assumed that the given date represents the Laukika era, even though it is not
explicitly named. In the dates of this era, the hundreds and thousands are usually not men¬
tioned. Dating is therefore based on the interpretation of palaeographic and stylistic character¬
istics.

66 September 594, after Fussman. Cf. Paul 1986, 172-190, pi. 83; Fussman 1993, 29-31, no. 6.2,
pis. 18-22.

67 August 616, after Fussman, 716, after Siudmak.. Cf. Fussman 1993,31-32, no. 6.3, pi. 23-27; von
Hiniiber 2004,151-152; Siudmak 2013, 329-330, pi. 150.

68 19 December 671, after C. Vogel in von Fliniiber. Cf. Fussman 1993, 4-19; von Fhniiber 2004,
48-52, Nr. 22, Abb. 18-19. Line 5 of the inscription contains the number 32 000.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

261

4. Metal image of a crowned Buddha in dharmacakrapravartanamudrd from the
year 54 (H ^), donated by Surabhi.®®

5. Metal image of a Buddha in samadhimudra seated between two stupas, from
the year 55 (^^), donated by Sakyabhiksu Bhadradharma/”

6. Stone inscription in Danyor from the year 62 Phalguna su di 2

7. Rock inscription of Rajaputra Tarama (Hodar South) from the year 68 ^),

Marga<sirsa> su di 14

8. Metal image of a Maitreya from the year 82 (^^), donated by Samavati, now
at the Jo khang in Lhasa/^

9. Metal image of a crowned Buddha in dharmacakrapmvartanamudra seated
between two stupas, from the year 90 ((5\ ’), Vaisakha su di 2 (^), donated by
Samkarasena and his wife Devasri (Asia Society New York, Mr. and Mrs. John
D. Rockefeller 3"^ Collection of Asian Art, 1979.44).^'*

10. Metal image of a crowned Buddha in bhumisparsamudra and holding a book,
from the year 90, Vaisakha su di 8, donated by Nandivikramadityanandi
(Virginia Museum of Fine Arts, Richmond; 86.120).^^ The number of the day
cannot be read on the published photograph.

11. Metal image of the crowned Buddha Maitreya from the year 91 ((J| n), donated
by Nandivikramadityanandi (Pritzker Collection).^®

12. Stone image of the “mahdsnvajrasana”, the Buddha in bhumisparsamudra in
the Maravijaya episode, from the year 95 (^''\), Vaisakha sukla 15 (0 '^),

69 678/9, after von Hiniiber. Cf. von Hiniiber 2004,168-169, Abb. 35.

70 679/80 or 779/80, after von Hiniiber; quoted in von Schroeder. Cf. von Schroeder 2001, 114-
115, no. 22A-B.

71 19 February 687, after C. Vogel in von Hiniiber. Cf. von Hiniiber 2004, 52-57, Nr. 23, Abb. 20-23.

72 28 November 692, after C. Vogel in von Hiniiber. Cf. von Hiniiber 2004, 66-68, Nr. 32A, Abb.
31.

73 706/7, after von Hiniiber. Cf. Henss 1996, 61, fig. 9; von Schroeder 2001, 176-180, no. 52A-D;
von Hiniiber 2003, 36-37, fig. 3; von Hiniiber 2004, 31-36, Nr. 12, Abb. 4; Siudmak 2013, 312-314,
pi. 143.

74 20 April 714, after C. Vogel in von Hiniiber 2004. Cf. Pal 1975,106-107, pis. 30a, b; von Schroe¬
der 1981, 118-119, no. 16B; Fussman 1993, 43-47, no. 6.6, pi. 31; Reedy 1997, 157-158, K50; Pal
2003,106-107, no. 63; Huntington/Bangdel 2003, 84-85, no. 9; von Hiniiber 2003, 37, fig. 4; von
Hiniiber 2004, 39-40,154-156, Nr. 15, Abb. 6; Siudmak 2013, 317-319, pi. 145 (mirror image!).

75 26/27 April 714, after C. Vogel in von Hiniiber. Cf. Pal 1975,108-109, pi. 31; von Schroeder 1981,
118, no. 16C; Postel/Neven/Mankodi 1985, 86, 252-254, figs. 103, 411 (only here are all the faces
of the inscription published); Fussman 1993, 39-43, no. 6.5, pi. 30; von Hiniiber 2004, 38-39,
153-154, Nr. 14, Abb. 5; Siudmak 2013, 315-317, pi. 144.

76 23 April 715, after von Hiniiber. See Pal 2003, 108-109, no. 64 (mirror image!); von Hiniiber
2003, 37-39, fig. 5; von Hiniiber 2004, 40-42, 156-158, Nr. 16, Abb. 7; Siudmak 2013, 319-322, pi.
146.

262

Gudrun Melzer

donated by Sukhavarman (National Museum, New Delhi, inv. 82.4a)/^ This
new reading of the date is the result of comparing the numerals with the
other examples listed in table 3, and appears to be more satisfying than the
reading for the year as 5 (Fussman) or 15 (Paul).

13. Metal image of a Buddha in dharmacakrapravartanamudrd, donated by
Ratnapalasvami (George Ortiz Collection).^® The weight of the image is
incised on the pedestal, namely pala 55 (*( K,).

14. Metal image of the Buddha Visvabhu in dharmacakmpravartanamudra from
the year 99 ((? (j), donated by the Sakyabhiksu Acintamittra and Viryamittra.^®

15. Metal image of a Buddha in dharmacakrapravartanamudrd (Dangkhar
Monastery) from the year 88 (^7), mdrga<sirsa> su di 15 ("5^), donated by
Vikavarman.®”

Appendix II: Towards a more precise definition of
GB 2/PS in manuscripts

In the Gilgit region, the script GB2/PS became widespread in the latter half of the
7* century during the reign of Navasurendradityanandi.®^ Most probably, from
the beginning it included the new shapes for the aksaras ya and ha, which are
not found in GB 1.®^ Nevertheless, even after the introduction of the new script,
the old shapes of both aksaras enjoyed a long life in manuscripts, especially as
part of conjunct signs in the case of ha, and in combination with vowel diacritics
in the case of ya. If the radiocarbon dating for the Dlrghdgama manuscript (DA)
can be trusted, these shapes were still being written by copyists in the second
half of the 8* century or even later. However, their usage was dependent on the
individual scribes. While some consistently wrote using the new shapes, others

77 Ca. 719 CE and not 639 (Pal and Paul) or 629 (Fussman) or 729/739 (Siudmak 2013). For pho¬
tographs, see, e.g., Paul 1986,159-172, pis. 80, 80a, 80b; Siudmak 1990, figs. 1-2; Fussman 1993,
32-39, no. 6.4, pi. 28-29; Pal 2003, 92, fig. 2; Siudmak 2013, 344-351, pi. 159. Fussman has sug¬
gested reading the first numeral as the siddham symbol, which would make no sense between
the abbreviation sam for “year” and the actual numeral.

78 Weldon/Singer 1999, 38-39, pi. 3; Siudmak 2013, 272-276, pi. 126.

79 723/4 or 823/4, after von Hiniiber. Cf. von Hiniiber 2007, 40-41, pi. 4-5.

80 712, after Laurent 2013,191. See Laurent 2013, figs. 194-197, 200-201.

81 For details, see notes 8,10.

82 The Hatun inscription is one of the earliest datable witnesses of the new shapes (von
Hiniiber 2004, 48-52, Nr. 22, Abb. 18, dated to 671 CE), as are the protective charms for
Navasurendradityanandi (von Hiniiber 2004,14-16, Nr. 4a-c, Abb. 1-2).

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

263

occasionally copied the old shapes. Therefore, alone the presence of these old
forms offers no help in deducing a more precise dating, unless the entire manu¬
script contains only these forms.

The script has a calligraphic variant, which is usually found in religious man¬
uscripts. A more cursive style of everyday writing is encountered in inscriptions
(on stone and metal images) and sometimes also in manuscripts, in particular in
additions, colophons and non-religious texts.®''

In the calligraphic variant, two sub-groups can be distinguished. The first
one, which I call Type A, is represented by most Giigit manuscripts written in GB
2/PS, most notably the Vinayavastvdgama and the DA. The second one (Type B)
differs from Type A in its more fluid appearance. The most obvious difference
concerns the subscribed -y-, which stays at the bottom of the upper consonant
sign in Type A (^ cya, £ tya), but in Type B is sometimes elongated on the right
side and drawn at the top of the (upper) consonant sign (^ cya, 8 ) tya).®^ In a few
manuscripts, the vowel diacritic is attached to the -y- instead of the upper conso¬
nant sign (^ vyo, ^ syd).®® This characteristic is very common, e.g., in eastern
Indian Siddhamatrka documents. Type B may only have flourished for a relatively
short period in Giigit, since it had no impact on the later development of Sarada
script. Both types (A and B) are found in all regions where GB 2/PS was used:
Giigit, Afghanistan, as well as for a few manuscripts from Central Asia.

A latest time limit for GB 2/PS has not yet been clearly defined, because no
single manuscript has been discovered that is safely datable to the 9'^^ century.
However, a birch-bark codex from Kashmir that is preserved in the Tibet Museum
in Lhasa may offer a clue.®^ It contains several tantric texts by different authors.

83 In a mahdraksd added at the end of the Hayagnvavidyd that is written entirely in GB 1, the
scribe, who has a preference for the old variants, writes old and new forms directly next to each
other (Ser. no. 33b, GBM 2459-2460; see von Hiniiber 2014,104). For an example from the Schoy-
en Collection with only old forms of ya (MS 2381/57; the text on the other side is written in GB 1!),
see Hartmann 2002b, 314, 318-319; Sander 2007,131,137, fig. 3.

84 For the more cursive variant, see the above-mentioned protective charms for Navasuren-
dradityanandi and the added mahdraksd at the end of the Hayagrivavidyd, a section in a
Kdrmavdcand collection (ser. no. 3; GBM 67-68, folio see von Hiniiber 1969,103,125-131),
Annapdnavidhi (a medical text; ser. no. 20; GBM 1708-1713), Ddrikdgdthds (ser. no. 53; GBM 3229-
3263) and the Bhakhshali manuscript (a mathematical text).

85 See the Ekottarikdgama (Ser. no. 4a; GBM 93-128) and the Dharmaskandha (Ser. no. 5; GBM
151-156).

86 See a Prdtimoksasutra and Karmavdcand (Ser. no. 4b and d; GBM 129-150) and the
Visvantardvaddna (Ser. no. 8; GBM 1332-1349, 3314-3315).

87 I am grateful to Kazuo Kano, Alexis Sanderson, and Christiana Kalantari who provided me
information about the Lhasa manuscript as well as photographs. A few leaves are published in
Precious Deposits 1,113-116, no. 74, and Tibet Museum, 54-55, no. 1.

264

Gudrun Melzer

and at least partly, by different scribes. The second to last text contains a short
colophon referring to the year 29 of the Laukika era or of the reign of Anantadeva,
who may be the same Anantadeva mentioned in Kashmirian historiographical
texts.®® Thus, the manuscript most likely dates to the middle of the 11* century.

The script exhibits a strong similarity to the script of the DA, and thus the sig¬
nificant differences can only be detected upon a second look. In the Lhasa manu¬
script, the diacritic vowel sign -a is always attached to the right vertical of the
consonant sign ghra, yd, sd), while in the DA several possibilities exist

ghra, 3? yd, sd). Also in the Lhasa manuscript, a tendency for writing dia¬
critic vowel signs at the top of consonant signs can be observed ke, $ ko, mo,

% kau, T tau, ^ ran, ^ law, DA: % kau, ^ tau, ^ ran, lau)?'^ The aksara ca, as
a main consonant sign, has a much less triangular shape in the Lhasa manuscript
*t ca, ^ co) than in the DA ^ ca, ^ co). The aksara na appears in two vari¬
ants in the Lhasa manuscript •"), the latter corresponding to the shape used in

the DA. Two different forms can also be found for the subscribed consonant sign
-th- in the Lhasa manuscript. While one corresponds with the DA (Lhasa: sthi;
DA: ^ stha), the second form is very different (Lhasa: 5. ntha, rtha, ^ stha; DA:
5 ntha, 5 rtha, ^ stha). The aksara la represents an important indication for the
more developed type of the script in the Lhasa manuscript (^; DA: •T). The Lhasa
manuscript only contains modern forms for ya («r yd) and ha (<5), but it should
not be forgotten that the manuscript does not have a very long copying history.
In the Lhasa manuscript, two punctuation marks can be found that are unknown
in the DA. One looks like a comma and stands either after a word or a word group
(,).®“ There is also a sign that has a function similar to the double danda at the end
of text sections (5). Other differences are listed in table 4.

Finally, another interesting detail can be observed. In the Lhasa manuscript,
the forms of ba (e.g. « ba, 8* ba, bi) and va (e.g. ^ va, ^ vd, vf) are clearly
differentiated,®^ in contrast to the DA, where the two aksaras cannot be distin-

88 Kawasaki 2004, 50. Surprisingly there are no titles of the ruler mentioned.

89 This tallies with the observations by Vogel (1911, 64) concerning a few copper plate inscrip¬
tions from Chamba of the 11*^ century. Vogei has compared the frequency of the three possible
types for writing the medial -o with the earlier Sarahan stone inscription (prasasti) from about
the lO'** century. According to him (ibid, 65), by the 13* century the addition of the -o above the
main consonant sign becomes (with few exceptions) the norm in inscriptions.

90 Similar marks can also be found in Nepalese manuscripts and inscriptions, however, most
are from a slightly later period onwards.

91 However, the difference is iess obvious in the case of the conjunct signs or in the combina¬
tion of bu/vu. in this respect, inscriptions may differ from manuscripts. Kaul Deambi (2008, 39)
did not notice differences between the two aksaras in early Sarada inscriptions of the 11* to 13*
centuries. Earlier, he referred to a difference in the Bakhshali manuscript (1982, 72, 85), but later

Tab. li-.Aksaras of “Proto-Sarada/GB2” from the Dirghagama manuscript and “early Sarada” from the Lhasa manuscript (in italics)

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Gilgit Region

265

fti

«rr 1

cca

fit ~

hca

W«

s ■=

Wf>

ite 'M

ei)i

p 1

, ins

Iff a

^ .2L

£ 'g.

< S

r o

ins

fe)t

l*r §,

Bf a

F .SL

t %

F's

jl** a

1? o

1^1

/p a

(PT u

•r

l<r 1

11:

K* a

iff ra

Ut ^

-is:

1 1

^ a

fr 8

fetr.|

t ^

l c-

k» a

<ft* a

r ^

(w ^

P S

(»r §,

^ S

£ g.

P* a

^ oi

P S

r S,

’G

fer.2

t g.

HP ™

^ 2

r a.

P 5

^ OJ

r w)

‘u

IT .2

F g.

?? 1

iP 2

P 5

B 8

6" ;s.

if =§.

fo ^

r a

•9 3

Id’ ^■

1? M

IT 8

P ;s.

Pd .>:

f =§■

H 1:

f*’ 2

K =1

iro

bfl

If 3

If- ;™

6i) 1

6r ^•

fs g:

p 2

r 3

r ;ro

Pd.>:

prig.

^ 1 :

^ a-

r =>

I5f M

6v -c

-S,

‘P'i:.

;<> -

k9.g

'B)

Wf.|

.IE

# S.

(Pa¬

i* _

if M

•r 'B)

^ a

W’ -6

is.

rr 3

(*? 3

Hr 'bi)

tf :e

hf -5

IT 2

Jf s

.ti- -is:
-is:

^ ’B)

5^1

»!9 1

6 s.

tf g.

IP 2

4f 2

’bi)

ins

fe" M

M 1 '

- iro

Pf IE,

/g s.

‘1 g

-P a

''3

^ D)

P ■§,

»9 CT

^ 4 B.

1 g.

‘P a

:§

4i?' 1

& iro

W bfl

P -g>

pr ;e.

t a

M*’ a

lip :§

•r^ O)

tr ^

iro

t a

^ -a

9!' o

Ctr

IT ^

to. ^
Ir

^ ro
IT bfl

Itr 1

trfi

^ JB.

tt g.

4Pa

IT ™

K- S

fys

^ s

F's.

nT a

fof :§:

S' t

1 g.

4? -a

266

Gudrun Melzer

1/1

'C3

Jfr g

iro

STB

Mf §

if &

u a-

ki> a¬

K!^a

i»fa

6n §

dha

ndra

tjr^ a

bha

k®r 's.

tr- 5;

rdha

dha

fjf 'E

nda

bha

tSr '5,

£!

rdi

dva

^^r 'E

epu

-r'a

bha

p{r s

£ a

»p"-g

dva

6<-

ntha

'5.

bha

-5^ 'i

»»■-§

BT -o

iw a

Ct>' '5.

bha

•>,

^ a

<15 «

dva

ln> c

pha

&r '§,

rtha

ft;

dva

P" ^

pha

rtha

Jl.

dra

nka

pra

fe '5,

w s

rno

nka

^ 'a

frl

J? S.

K 5

rno

‘»i)l

(py=g

nau

-B*

pra

^ S-

sr 'c

tf E-

«?

KJt

isr'a

nau

> a

r a

NO t

ih' t

wr ^

dhye

pnu

»ni 5

2r •=

, o

(fc' a

fJI

nvi

nud

bhe

¥ 1

=§

nvi

ifr 1

bhe

IS "&

thai

KrI

iro

6J|

DAU

pau

bhr

mai

h a

nr s>

thai

dda

nai

BAU

pau

mai

»r £?

^ a

dda

on t

rtJ^'ro

NO c

bha

i**' ^

/Jr E

tw' 2

rou

«£- 1

nya

*«(

bha

9LU

irr

rau

6^1

i»r a

dhi

nna

bhu

3(r

nna

»#!>S

E-

tor £

tw a

dhi

fft^ c

*r 1

tfi’ e'

^ -5

dha

ndha

fa/7/

Si I

^ E

i*t a

iro

Erg

ndra

bhi

^ s.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

267

W >•

IDA

sna

stha

hya

■K

if' 1-

vai

stha

hya

»r E

_ro

vai

sea

hya

4 E

rsa

lau

frm

stra

hya

^ E

rsa

iau

tf a

fT ^

stra

'IS; c

rve

!r 1

^ 1=

rve

kP ^•

Af -S!

sso

syo

sso

i> c

rvi

>•

ttr^ O)

V 'tn

ssa

sya

:p> §

ssa

'^r

^ >

f >

svo

IC3

r S

*. "3

5r 5;

V IL

rva

lai

^ 's

llf^s

sva

stha

sva

«» i.

rva

dfj ro

s/o

IC3

iw '^:

ska

svo

4 i.

rva

lai

^ -S

slo

ire

IW'I:

ttf' 5!

sva

rva

(fr ^

& :5

sru

Surl

syo

Sri

K) b

P' ^

M/l

sru

stra

sya

dJrl

H) I

fe' ;g

sra

W '§:

s/770

^ fo

% -B

& ire

W '1/1

sra

fcii S:

’sr

smo

ifei

rma

If 1=

»<; §

’Ni

spa

qsr E

hko

rma

1^ re

p 't/I

spra

rtf E

hka

rbha

bj) 1

- C3

tfi

ska

sthi

hka

tf -e

vya

I^P

ska

hva

ipr'S

S' :=

tto

o/\

smi

0^ S!.

fT's

t/i

hva

Pr^ "2

sma

? S!.

^ '5

stha

rdho

lai^

sna

stha

hye

268

Gudrun Melzer

guished from one another. Perhaps the same shape of these aksaras, along with
the differences of ca and la, can be regarded as important characteristics of GB 2/
PS when compared to the early Sarada script of the Lhasa manuscript.

The observations gleaned from comparing the script in these two manu¬
scripts may be useful for dating manuscripts or inscriptions that are still undated.
Thus, the Bhakhshali manuscript®^ is clearly nearer to the Lhasa manuscript than
to the DA.

The date when the “real Sarada script” made its first appearance is not
exactly known. Kaul Deambi has revised his view of its beginnings lying in the 8*
century based on the incorrect dating of the Hund inscription (Kaul Deambi 1992,
3, 24, 60-61),®® and has shifted it to the 9* century (2008,17, 23), referring to the
Sarahan stone inscription {pmsasti) as the earliest example. This important and
long inscription, is, unfortunately, not dated. Vogel is “inclined to assign it to the
9* century” (Vogel 1911, 47), but then dates it to the 10* century (ibid, 155). The
category of 9*- to 10*-century Sarada inscriptions of Kaul Deambi (2008, 24-34)
is rather blurred; it does not clearly indicate the differences to the earlier script.
Most of the inscriptions referred to are not precisely dated and the longer exam¬
ples are all ascribed to the 10* century. Based on the dating of GB 2 by Sander
(see note 10), Slaje (1993,15) regards the 10* century as the earliest date for the
Sarada script.

References

Agrawal, Jagannath (2001), Inscriptions of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Kashmir &
Adjoining Hilly Tracts, New Delhi: Indian Council of Historical Research.

Allon, Mark/ Salomon, Richard / Jacobsen, Geraldine / Zoppi, Ugo (2006), “Radiocarbon

Dating of KharosthT Fragments from the Schoyen and Senior Manuscript Collections”, in:
Braarvig et al. 2006, 279-291.

he abandoned this observation (2008, 53). The bare aksaras ba or bd, with nothing beneath, are
actually very rare (only two examples in the Bakhshali manuscript?).

92 See note 57.

93 This inscription of Queen Kamesvari from northern Pakistan corresponds closely to the script
of the Lhasa manuscript. The reading of the date is 158 and 159, and not 168 and 169 as most
scholars insist (Sahni 1938; Kaul Deambi 1982 and 2008; Agrawal 2001, 376), with the exception
of N. P. Chakravarty, the editor of Epigraphia Indica, who added a footnote to Sahni’s edition.
After the 8'*' century date (Sahni 1938; Kaul Deambi 1982, 3, 24, 60-61) was abandoned, it was
suggested that the year refers to the “Sahi era” of 850 CE (see Agrawal 2001, 376; Kaul Deambi
2008, 23, 35), and thus the inscription would date to ca. 1009 CE, based on the correct reading
of the numerals.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

269

Bendaii, Ceciie (1883), Catalogue of the Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts in the University Library,
Cambridge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Braarvig, Jens / Hartmann, Jens-Uwe / Matsuda, Kazunobu / Sander, Lore (eds.) (2000),
Manuscripts of the Schpyen Collection 1. Buddhist Manuscripts 1, Osio: Hermes
Pubiishing.

Braarvig, Jens / Harrison, Paui / Hartmann, jens-Uwe / Matsuda, Kazunobu / Sander, Lore
(eds.) (2002), Manuscripts of the Schpyen Collection 3. Buddhist Manuscripts 2, Osio:
Hermes Pubiishing.

Braarvig, Jens (eds.) (2006), Manuscripts of the Schpyen Collection. Buddhist Manuscripts 3,
Osio: Hermes Pubiishing.

Buhier, Georg (1896), indische Palaeographie. Von circa 350 a. Chr. - circa 1300 p. Chr.

(Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Phiioiogie und Aitertumskunde I/ll), Strassburg: Triibner.

Chojnacki, Christine / Hartmann, Jens-Uwe / Tschannerl, Volker M. (eds.) (2000),

Vividharatnakarandaka. Festgabe fiir Adelheid Mette (Indica et Tibetica 37), Swisttal-
Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica.

Das Lotossutra und seine Welt. Buddhistische Manuskripte derCrofien Seidenstrafie (2000),

St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian
Academy of Sciences.

Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond et al. (eds.) (200A), Turfan Revisited - The First Century
of Research into the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road (Monographien zur indischen
Archaologie, Kunst und Phiioiogie, Band 17), Berlin: Reimer.

Einoo, Shingo (ed.) (2009), Genesis and Development of Tantrism, Tokyo: Sankibb Busshorin.

Frentz, Hanns-Peter (1987), Zahlenzeichen in den Gilgit-Handschriften. Schriftliche Hausarbeit
zum Magisterexamen, Fachbereich lA (Altertumswissenschaften), Freie Universitat Berlin
(unpublished).

Fussman, Gerard (1993), “Chilas, Hatun et les bronzes bouddhiques du Cachemire”, in: Jettmar
1993,1-60.

Fussman, Gerard (2004), “Dans quel type de batiment furent trouves les manuscrits de Giigit?”,
tn: JournalAsiatique 292:1-2,101-150.

Gaeffke, Peter / Utz, David A. (eds.) (1988), The Countries of South Asia: Boundaries,

Extensions, and interrelations, Philadelphia: Department of South Asia Regional Studies,
University of Pennsylvania.

GBMRaghuVira / Lokesh Chandra (eds.) (^1959-74), Giigit Buddhist Manuscripts (Sata-P\taka
Series 10/1-10), New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture (^1995: revised and
enlarged compact facsimile edition in three volumes).

GM Nalinaksha Dutt (ed.) (1939-59), Giigit Manuscripts, Delhi: Sri Satguru Publishing.

Harrison, Paul / Hartmann, Jens-Uwe (eds.) (2014), From Birch Bark to Digital Data: Recent
Advances in Buddhist Manuscript Research. Papers Presented at the Conference indie
Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15-19 2009, Wien: Verlag der
Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Hartmann, Jens-Uwe (2000), “Zu einer neuen Handschrift des DTrghagama”, in: Chojnacki
2000, 359-367.

Hartmann, Jens-Uwe (2002a), “Further Remarks on the New Manuscript of the DTrghagama”, in:
Journal of the International College for Advanced Buddhist Studies 5,133-150.

Hartmann, Jens-Uwe (2002b), “Aryasura’s Jatakamala”, in: Braarvig et al. 2002, 314-322.

270

Gudrun Melzer

Hartmann, Jens-Uwe (200Aa), “Contents and Structure of the Dirghagama of the (Mula-)
Sarvastivadins”, in: Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced
Buddhology 7, 119-137.

Hartmann, Jens-Uwe (200Ab), “Buddhism alongthe Silk Road: On the Relationship between the
Buddhist Sanskrit Texts from Northern Turkestan and those from Afghanistan”, in: Durkin-
Meisterernst et al. 2004,125-128.

Hartmann, Jens Uwe (2014), “The Manuscript of the Dirghagama and the Private Collection in
Virginia,” in: Harrison / Hartmann 2014,137-155.

Hayashi, Takao (1995), The BakhshdllManuscript. An Ancient Indian mathematical treatise
(Groningen Oriental Studies XI), Groningen: E. Forsten.

Henss, Michael (1996), “Himalayan Metal Images of Five Centuries: Recent Discoveries in
Tibet”, in: Orientations 27:6, 57-66.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (1969), “Fine Karmavacana-Sammlung aus Gilgit”, \n: Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaftll9, 102-132.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (1979), “Die Erforschung der Gilgit-Handschriften (Funde buddhistischer
Sanskrit-Handschriften I)”, in: Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen
i. Philogisch-historische Klassell, 329-359.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (1980), “Die Kolophone der Gilgit-Handschriften”, in: Studien zur indologie
und iranistik 5-6, 49-82.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (1983), “Die Bedeutung des Handschriftenfundes bei Gilgit”, in: Steppat
1983, 47-66.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (1986-87), “The Patola Sahis of Gilgit—A Forgotten Dynasty”, in: Journal of
the Oriental Institute 36, 221-229.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (1988), “Buddhism in Gilgit Between India and Central Asia”, in: Gaeffke /
Utz 1988, 40-48.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (2003), “The Magnificent Bronze of Nandivikramadityanandi: A Delight for
the Beholder, A Worry for the Epigraphist”, in Orientations 34:4, 35-39.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (2004), Die Palola Sahis, ihre Steininschriften, inschriften auf Bronzen,
Handschriftenkolophone und Schutzzauber: Materialien zur Geschichte von Gilgit und
Childs (Antiquities of Northern Pakistan, Reports and Studies 5), Mainz: von Zabern.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (2007), “Three New Bronzes from Gilgit”, in: Annual Report of the

International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology atSoka University 18, 39-ii3.

Hiniiber, Oskar von (2014), “The Buddhist Gilgit Manuscripts. An Ancient Buddhist Library in
Modern Research,” in: Harrison / Hartmann 2014, 79-135.

Huntington, John C. / Bangdel, Dina (2003), The Circle of Bliss. Buddhist Meditational Art,
Columbus, Chicago: Serindia Publications.

Hu-von Hiniiber, Haiyan {199h), Das Posadhavastu. Vorschriften fiir die buddhistische
Beichtfeierim Vinaya der Mulasarvdstivddins (Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik,
Monographie 13), Rein beck: Dr. Inge Wezler, Verlagfiir Orientalische Fachpublikationen.

Jettmar, Karl et al. (eds.) (1989), Antiquities of Northern Pakistan. Reports and Studies, vol. 1:
Rock inscriptions in the indus Valley, Mainz: von Zabern.

Jettmar, Karl / Kbnig, Ditte / Bemmann, Martin (eds.) (1993), Antiquities of Northern Pakistan.
Reports and Studies, Vol. 2. Mainz : von Zabern.

Kaul Deambi, Bhushan Kumar (1982), Corpus ofSdradd inscriptions of Kashmir, With Special
Reference to Origin and Development ofSdradd Script, Delhi: Agam.

Kaul Deambi, Bhushan Kumar (2008), Sdradd and TdkarlAlphabets, Origin and Development,
New Delhi: Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, D.K. Printworld.

A Palaeographic Study of a Buddhist Manuscript from the Giigit Region

271

Kaui Shastri, M. S. (1939), “Report on the Giigit Excavation in 1938”, in: The Quarterly Journal of
the Mythic Society 30:1,1-12.

Kawasaki, Kazuhiro (2004), “On a Birch-bark Sanskrit Manuscript preserved in the Tibet
Museum”, in: Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 52:2, 50-52.

Kosta, Peter et ai. (eds.) (1988), Studio indogermanica etSlavica, Festgabe fur Werner Thomas
zum 65. Geburtstag (Specimina Phiioiogiae Siavicae, Suppi. 26), Munchen: Sagner.

Laurent, Lobsang Nyima (2013) “Bronze of Dangkhar”, in: Neuwirth 2013,177-193.

Meizer, Gudrun (2010), Bin Abschnittaus dem DIrghdgama, Inaugurai-Dissertation zur
Eriangung des Doktorgrades der Phiiosophie an der Ludwig-Maximiiians-Universitat
Munchen (microfiche edition).

Neuwirth, Hoiger(ed.) (2013) The Ancient Monastic Complex of Dangkhar. Buddhist Architecture
in the Western Himalayas. Graz: Graz University of Technoiogy.

Pai, Pratapraditya (1975), Bronzes of Kashmir, New Deihi: Hacker Art Books.

Pai, Pratapraditya (2003), Himalayas. An Aesthetic Adventure, Berkeiey: University of Caiifornia
Press.

Paui, Pran Gopai (1986), Early Sculpture of Kashmir (before the middle of the eighth century
A.D.), Leiden: Sneidruk Enschede.

Postei, M. / Neven, A. / Mankodi, K. (1985), Antiquities of Himachal, Bombay: Franco-Indian
Pharmaceuticais.

Precious Deposits. Historical Relics of Tibet, China, vol. 1: Prehistoric Age and Tuba Period
(2000), Beijing: Morning Giory pubiishers.

Preisendanz, Karin (ed.) (2007), Expanding and Merging Horizons. Contributions to South

Asian and Cross-Cultural Studies in Commemoration of Wilhelm Halbfass, Vienna: Austrian
Academy of Sciences Press.

Reedy, Chandra R. (1997), Himalayan Bronzes. Technology, Style, and Choices, Newark, London:
University of Deiaware Press.

Sadakata, Akira (1999), “Girugitto shahon: Tenson-kyo danpen no kaidoku [The Giigit

Manuscript: Deciphering the Mahagovindasutra Fragments]”, in: Daihorin, Januar 1999,
30-35.

Sahni, Daya Ram (1938), “ASarada Inscription from Hund”, in: Epigraphia indicall, 97-98.

Salomon, Richard (1998), indian Epigraphy. A Guide to the Study of inscriptions in Sanskrit,
Prakrit, and the Other indo-Aryan Languages, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sander, Lore (1968), Paldographisches zu den Sanskrithandschriften der Berliner Turfan-

sammlung (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Supplement 8),
Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Sander, Lore (1988), “Auftraggeber, Schreiber und Schreibeigenheiten im Spiegel khotan-
sakischer Handschriften in formaler BrahmT”, in: Kosta et al. 1988, 533-549.

Sander, Lore (1989), “Remarks on the Formal BrahmT of Giigit, Bamiyan, and Khotan with an
Appendix of Selected Inscriptions from Thor North (Pakistan)”, in: Karl Jettmar et al. 1989,
107-129.

Sander, Lore (2000), “Fragments of an Astasahasrika manuscript from the Kusana Period”, in:
Braarvig et al. 2000,1-51.

Sander, Lore (2002), “New Fragments of the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita of the Kusana
Period”, in: Braarvig et al. 2002, 37-44.

Sander, Lore (2007), “Confusion of Terms and Terms of Confusion in Indian Palaeography”, in:
Preisendanz 2007,121-139.

Sanderson, Alexis (2009), “The Saiva Age”, in: Einoo 2009, 41-349.

272

Gudrun Melzer

Schmithausen, Lambert (2002), “Fragments of an Early Commentary”, in: Braarvig et al. 2002,

Schroeder, Ulrich von (1981), Indo-Tibetan Bronzes, Hong Kong: Visual Dharma.

Schroeder, Ulrich von (2001), Buddhist Sculptures in Tibet, Hong Kong: Visual Dharma.

SHT Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden (Verzeichnis der orientalischen

Handschriften in Deutschland X), ed. by Ernst Waldschmidt et al., Wiesbaden: Steiner,
1965-.

Siudmak, John (1990), “A Kashmir Stone Mahadharsana Relief in the National Museum, New
Delhi: A Stylistic Consideration”, in: Taddei / Callieri 1990, 8A7-868.

Siudmak, John (2013), The Hindu-Buddhist Sculpture of Ancient Kashmir and its influences
(Handbuch der Orientalistik2, 28), Leiden: Brill.

Slaje, Walter (1993), Indische Schriften Band 1: Sdradd. Deskriptiv-synchrone Schriftkunde
zur Bearbeitung kaschmirischer Sanskrit-Manuskripte. Aufder Grundlage von Kusalas
Ghatakharpara-GOdhadTpikd unter graphischer Mitwirkung von Eva Slaje, Reinbek:

Dr. inge Wezler, Verlag fur Orientalistische Fachpublikationen.

Steppat, Fritz (ed.) (1983), Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft:
Supplement 5: XXi. Deutscher Orientalistentag: Ausgewahlte Vortrage, Wiesbaden:

Steiner.

Taddei, Maurizio / Callieri, Pierfrancesco (eds.) (1990), South Asian Archaeology 1987.
Proceedings of the Ninth international Conference of the Association of South Asian
Archaeologists in Western Europe, Part 2, held in the Fondazione Giorgio Cini, island of
San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice, Rome: istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente.

Tibet Museum (2001), compiled by Tibet Museum, Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing
House.

Tripathi, Chandrabhal (1995), Ekottardgama-Fragmente der Gilgit-Handschrift (5tud\en
zur indologie und iranistik, Monographie 2), Rein beck: Dr. inge Wezler, Verlag fiir
Orientalische Fachpublikationen.

Vogel, J. Ph. (1911), Antiquities ofChamba State, Parti: Inscriptions of the Pre-Muhammadan
Period (Archaeological Survey of India, New imperial Series, 36), Calcutta : Superintendent
Government Press, reprint 199A New Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India.

Walker, Gregory / Clapinson, Mary / Forbes, Lesley (2004), The Bodleian Library: A Subject
Guide to the Collections, Oxford: Bodleian Library.

Wangdu, Pasang / Diemberger, Hildegard (2000), dBa’ bzhed. The Royal Narrative Concerning
the Bringing of the Buddha’s Doctrine to Tibet, Translation and Facsimile Edition of the
Tibetan Text, Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Weldon, David / Singer, Jane Casey (1999), The Sculptural Heritage of Tibet: Buddhist Art in the
NyingjeiLam Collection, London: Laurence King Publishing.

Wille, Klaus (1990), Die handschriftliche Uberlieferung des Vinayavastu der Mulasarvdstivddin
(Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Supplementband 30),
Stuttgart: F. Steiner.

Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M. i. (1999-2000), “A Sanskrit manuscript on birch-bark from
Bairam-Ali: Part 1-5. The Vinaya of the Sarvastivadins”, in: Manuscripta Orientalia 5:2
(1999), 27-36; 5:3 (1999), 27-35; 5:4 (1999), 7-19; 6:1 (2000), 14-18; 6:2 (2000), 10-16.

Yamagiwa, Nobuyuki (2001), Das Pdndulohitakavastu. Uber die verschiedenen

Verfahrensweisen der Bestrafung in der buddhistischen Gemeinde. Neuausgabe der
Sanskrit-Handschrift aus Gilgit, tibetischer Text und deutsche Ubersetzung (indica et
Tibetica 41), Marburg: indica et Tibetica Verlag.

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History
and Science

1 Manuscript studies and Tibetan books

Considered as part of a world heritage, ancient books are not only vehicles for
content, but also very important sources of information about technology, mate¬
rials used for production, as well as the art techniques involved. There are several
reasons for carrying out this study: at the micro-level, studying individual books
provides us with valuable information about a particular book and possibly its
provenance. However, seen from a broader perspective, examining a range of
items help reconstruct the history of crafts connected with bookmaking, such as
papermaking, ink production, and the art of scribing. Furthermore, the examina¬
tion of each book will allow evidence to be collected on book production from all
periods and regions in Tibet, thus enhancing our understanding of the role books
play in Tibetan culture. In other words, this kind of material research, when per¬
formed on a sufficiently representative groups of books, will enable the history of
the book in Tibet to be written. The following is a summary of the research which
has been conducted to date.

In the context of library science, a manuscript is defined as any handwritten
item in the collections of a library or an archive, as opposed to being printed or
reproduced in some other way. In general, manuscript culture refers to the devel¬
opment and use of manuscripts as a means of storing and disseminating infor¬
mation prior to the age of printing. The history of manuscripts in the Western
world may seem to have ended with the invention and proliferation of printing.
Tibetans, however, continued the tradition of manuscript production even after
the invention of xylography. Manuscripts were still being produced in the second
half of the ZO*** century, when Tibet had become part of China and the editing
process was automated. Within that timeframe, the development of book produc¬
tion techniques was influenced by the availability of new materials, but the basic
book formats have been preserved until today.

Manuscript studies, bibliography, and the history of books are very closely
related to each other. Manuscript studies overlap with and make use of such dis¬
ciplines as palaeography, codicology, archaeology, papyrology, the study of book
bindings, writing implements, and scribal methods. Additionally, all aspects of
manuscript production, dissemination, readership, provenance, ownership, and
preservation are relevant to manuscript studies.

276

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

Even though written documents play an important role in the discipline of
history, there can be no doubt that important evidence comes from a variety of
different sources, including artefacts and oral tradition. However, written docu¬
ments such as manuscripts, printed books, or inscribed pillars, act both as docu¬
ments and as artefacts, and their physical properties can be studied in much the
same way as those of a sculpture, painting, or ceramic object. Thus, were one to
ignore the non-linguistic aspects of manuscripts, it would deprive one of impor¬
tant historical evidence.

While the history of Tibetan literature has at least received some attention
within Tibetan Studies, a systematic study of the physical features of manuscripts,
such as format, binding style, and material composition, is unfortunately almost
completely lacking, with the notable exception of Cristina Scherrer-Schaub’s con¬
tributions.^ I would, however, refrain from using the term “codicology” in the
context of old Tibetan manuscripts. Codicology is the study of the codex, which
is a bound book, and particularly the study of the physical makeup and modes
of production of a given volume. Between the 2"'^ and centuries, the preserva¬
tion of writing in the Latin world shifted from papyrus, stored in rolls, to parch¬
ment, stored in a codex, or pages bound into a book. We might say that codicol¬
ogy is the archaeology of the book if defined as the codex, with “archaeology”
understood as the search for and interpretation of artifacts. Since the majority
of Tibetan books represent the pothi format, a loose-leaf construction, it would
be better simply to use the term “archaeology” here, especially because the term
“archaeology of the book” is already used in the context of studying the history
and evolution of old manuscripts and medieval book constructions.^

In any kind of study of book collections related to manuscript studies, a sta¬
tistical approach is important. It is not possible to base one’s conclusions only on
a small group of books from a single collection, place, or ovmer. Although each
observation is important in its own right, it still must only be regarded as part of
the data as a whole, and cannot be understood as representative of all Tibetan
book history. In general, more research is needed before this field can fully con¬
tribute to the reconstruction of the history of the Tibetan book.

Since Tibetan has been used as a literary language throughout a very large
area and across several nations, including the Himalayan region of South Asia,
the concept of nationality in the context of cultural heritage among originally
nomadic people is complicated. The full geographical range in which Tibetan has

1 Scherrer-Schaub 1999, Scherrer-Schaub and Bonani 2002.

2 For reference to “archaeology of the book” in medieval manuscript studies, see Szirmai 1999.
However, in medieval manuscript studies both terms are used equally, as it was discussed by
Gruijs 1972.

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

277

served as a language of learning, however, is even greater. With the promulgation
of Tibetan Buddhism among the Mongols and Manchus, literary Tibetan became
a common medium of communication among Inner Asian Buddhists by the end
of the 17* century, and was used at the beginning of the 20* century as far west
as the Volga River flows into the Caspian Sea and as far east as Beijing. The study
and use of literary Tibetan has also been revived to varying degrees in Burya¬
tia and Tuva in the Russian Federation, among ethnic Mongols and Yi in China,
and in Mongolia itself. This is why books written in Tibetan differ widely in their
form and in materials used: not every community using the Tibetan language
adapted all Tibetan bookmaking techniques similarly, nor did they use the same
resources. In this sense, local “book culture” was often preferred.

It is often assumed that the language of a book determines its ethnic affili¬
ation because language is a feature that distinguishes nations. But especially in
Tibet and also in many other parts of Asia, language is entirely insufficient as
a primary determinant. Depending on religious tradition, political situation, or
cultural tradition, the culture of a book often has a multilingual character. Never¬
theless Tibetan script was the most general criterion for selecting manuscripts in
this study, and this criterion served as a starting point for a preliminary typology
of Tibetan manuscripts features. Creating a typology of particular features, such
as page layout, format, binding style and materials can then help to classify the
initially large selection of books into groups and relate them to particular local
book cultures. This study indicates that each of the many physical characteristics
of which Tibetan books are composed might indeed lead to a variety of multicul¬
tural connections.

Present studies of Buddhist manuscripts owe much to the techniques and
terminology of codicology established by earlier humanist scholars of Latin and
Greek, or later also Middle Eastern languages.^ A significant part of the methods
and terminology can be borrowed, but not all, and not without careful con¬
sideration of the specifics of the new context. Asian manuscripts have not yet
been approached from a codicological, or rather archaeological perspective, as
Western manuscripts have.

3 Buddhist manuscripts studies as emerging discipline is discussed in Berkwitz / Schober /
Brown 2009.

278

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

2 Methodology: The uneasy alliance of science
and history in Tibetan manuscript studies

Until now, research on the materiality of Tibetan books has not been undertaken
in a systematic manner. Furthermore, in the case of Tibetan books, the interdisci¬
plinary character of manuscript studies gives rise to many methodological prob¬
lems. The lack of clarity or consensus on methods makes methodology itself still
a field of study and experimentation, without defined guidelines. Additionally,
the terminology is not unified, and is often dependant on a scholar’s particular
background. Clearly, results obtained from scientific examination and historical
record should complete and inform each other. However, to achieve such a level
of communication between different disciplines is a great challenge. Historians
rarely undertake scientific examinations of manuscripts, and tend to rely only on
their textual content; scientists are usually not equipped with adequate knowl¬
edge of the source language and culture to be able to fully interpret the results of
their analyses without the help of linguists and historians.

In fact, methods borrowed from various disciplines of both science and
history, such as library science, bibliography, codicology, palaeography, material
science, history of art and crafts, archeometry and archaeology, were applied for
this research in an attempt to establish a preliminary typology of Tibetan manu¬
scripts features. The first part of the investigations has always consisted of library
research, selection of manuscripts and preliminary descriptions of the physical
features of the manuscripts based on visual inspection, such as page outline fea¬
tures, book format and especially type of paper. Secondly, the genre of the book
was initially recognised based on the library catalogue entry or, in the case of
uncatalogued items, with the help of a regional specialist. Further palaeographi-
cal approaches allowed for comparative analyses of page outlines in different
types of books with special attention to the text composition, type of script, and
style of rubric and ruling.'* The main purpose was to group all the books that were
examined according to the features described above. It often proved helpful to
link particular items to groups that had previously been identified. Moreover, it
proved easier to classify particular manuscripts into categories on a visual basis
than by textual content alone. Further characteristics, such as decoration, ico¬
nography and paints, were examined within the scope of my abilities.

4 In Medieval Manuscript Studies “rubric” refers to lines of text written in a different ink. Most
often, but not always, red rubrics served as instructional guides to the reader, providing descrip¬
tive headings and marking divisions in the text. The term comes from Latin rubrica meaning red.
“Ruling” refers to the horizontal lines applied to the paper to guide the scribe’s hand.

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

279

Some data was extracted by means of analytical methods such as optical
microscopy. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), dendrochronology, etc. The
fibre composition of the paper was examined by the author for most of the manu¬
scripts described here. Material analyses were especially emphasized since they
provide a wealth of information about the origin of a book, and sometimes helped
date the creation of a particular piece of art or craftsmanship. In addition, mate¬
rial analyses often provided clues about the artist’s outlook, such as whether
their choice of materials was deliberate or out of necessity. The examination also
included studying the paper’s surface in the context of how it absorbs the ink,
as well as photographic documentation of the paper structure and transparency,
such as patterns of chain and laid lines on the paper sheet. In a few cases it was
possible to use radiocarbon dating to determine the age of paper. Though
expensive, this procedure is desirable as it provides an independent and objec¬
tive method for organic materials.

A detailed list of the institutions and collections of Tibetan books that have
been included in this research can be found in the appendix.

3 Preliminary approaches to a typology of the
features of manuscripts in Tibet

Manuscripts were produced even during the golden age of Tibetan xylograph
printing in the 18‘*' century, yet their purpose was different. Manuscripts were not
intended for mass dissemination, but instead as an ornate and unique offering
to the Dalai Lama or other patrons, and to gain spiritual merit. They were also
quicker and cheaper to produce when only one copy was intended. The act of
copying texts was regarded as highly meritorious, even more so than printing,
and thus was often sponsored by various religious and political leaders. There
has been always a close link between the aesthetics of book production and
patronage. However, many religious texts in Tibet were also copied by nonprofes¬
sional scribes for training purposes and to gain spiritual merit for their work. Such
manuscripts were usually produced and utilised by scribes as a part of their reli¬
gious practice. They were intended neither for wider dissemination nor as gifts.
They often contained only fragments of religious texts. Historical or administra¬
tive notes were also usually handwritten. Production of such manuscripts was
cheap, in contrast to the scribal publications of Tibetan Buddhist Canon editions.
Production of handwritten editions of Kanjur and Tanjur or other significant texts
was a costly and laborious process in which an equally great expenditure of funds
and resources was needed for every copy desired. The use of precious stones.

280

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

gold, silver and other rare minerals, as well as the application of special prepara¬
tion techniques, make them more expensive than xylograph prints in the final
analysis, especially if more than one copy was produced.

3.1 Ink and other writing substances

The material was initially divided into two groups; manuscripts written in black
ink on raw paper and manuscripts written in gold ink on blue or black paper.^
The first type was found in the British Library, the Asia and Pacific Museum in
Warsaw, the University of Virginia Library, the Jagiellonian University Library in
Cracow, and the Berlin State Library. Examples of the second type were found in
the collections of the British Library, the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, the
RRE private collection, the Columbia University Library, the Pomeranian Library
in Szczecin, and the Asia and Pacific Museum in Warsaw.®

In both types of manuscripts, the tools for executing the base lines and for
writing differ, and there are variations in the general layout of the pages as well,
such as the number of text lines, the size of margins, the placement of miniatures,
the decorative elements, the placement of commentary (if any) in relation to the
placement of the main text, and the presence of notes by author, scribe or readers
(so-called “marginalia” in Western books). Writing and painting tools have
always depended on the materials that are to be inscribed. In general, changes

5 Manuscripts written in gold are distinguished by their special decorative look. The symbolism
of this special form of Tibetan craftsmanship is very strongly connected with Buddhist philoso¬
phy and Tibetan religious art. Books are also known as “gold manuscripts” since they are sup¬
posed to be written with ink made of seven precious gems and metals, mostly gold. According
to a Tibetan manual for scribes, the first line of a text should be written in gold, the second one
in turquoise, the third in silver, the fourth in coral, the fifth in iron, the sixth in bronze, and the
seventh with material made of conch shell. The production demanded excellent artistic skills
which were also considered worthy of gaining spiritual merit. Gold manuscripts are also distin¬
guished from other manuscripts by the particular process needed for the preparation of paper
and the technique of executing the text (writing tools). For further information see: Bio rdor 1990.

6 The following is a list of items examined arranged according to their location: From the British
Library: Liberation through Hearing in the Intermediate State (OR 15190), manuscript written in
gold with Tibetan religious text brought as a gift from Bhutan in 1866 (MS 13162), Sel dkar Kanjur
(OR 6724). From the Flerbert F. Johnson Museum of Art: Illuminated cover and frontispiece of
Eight Thousand Lines Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (Accession number: 2006.028 a,b). From Rich¬
ard Ernst private collection: Illuminated cover and frontispiece of Eight Thousand Lines Perfec¬
tion of Wisdom Sutra. From the Columbia University Library: IS* century (?) Lotus Sutra (Tibetan
ms.6). From the Pomeranian Library in Szczecin: Diamond Sutra written in gold (DSB1). From the
Asia and Pacific Museum in Warsaw: Diamond Sutra written in gold (MAP 4323).

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

281

in technology entail other changes as well, for instance, the discovery of new
writing tools revolutionised all other practices in copying manuscripts. It seems,
however, that the foundation of the Tibetan art of writing, has not undergone a
“revolution” since very early times.

Different types of ruling, such as scribal guidelines, frames or marginal
lines, were indispensable elements of the outline of Tibetan manuscript leaves
(Figure 1). According to traditional procedures, in manuscripts written on raw
paper, numerous lines were drawn as a base for Tibetan text using a sandal¬
wood stick, which colours the paper yellow when wet, or with the juice of yellow
cypress turmeric (skyer shun gi khuwa) mixed with various fragrances. For manu¬
scripts written in gold ink, the ruling was scratched onto the paper with a sharp
tool without colouring involved, as we can observe in the Lotus Sutra (Tib. Ms.
6, Columbia University Library) or on the frontispiece from the Herbert Johnson
Museum of Art. Another type of ruling allows for text composition within a full
frame, or sometimes in between side margins. In many manuscripts written in
gold, these lines (or full frames) are drawn with red ink close to the edges of the
paper leaf. In other cases, the same ink is used as for the text.

Fig- 1: Text executed on yellow scribal guidelines and composed within red-drawn frame on this
page from the Tibetan Selkar Kanjur. The British Library Collection (OR 672A, vol. 56).

Another common element is the shape of circles located exactly in the places
where the holes were pierced for strings in the Indian pustaka - those were
primary to the text, which was composed out of those circled spots (Figure 2).
These circles were found in some of the Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang,
and also in many manuscripts dated to a period after the Dunhuang caves were
sealed in the early 11* century. In ms. 6 from the Columbia University, a sharp
tool was also used to create vertical lines corresponding to side margins. Fur¬
thermore, the central part of the leaf, as defined by margins, was painted with
black ink in a regular, rectangular shape holding all text lines. The margins are

282

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

not coloured and thus clearly marked off from the black-inked rectangular frame
containing text. The side margins vary in length from 5-6 cm, with the upper
and bottom margins 3-5 cm. In the middle of the framed area, there are two
circular shapes with the text arranged outside of them, made with a sharp tool.
Most of the circles were redrawn with red ink, and a few have an additional silver
circle inside.

Fig. 2: Shape of circle located where the hole in the Indian pustaka leaf usually was pierced for
string binding all leaves. Text based on the yellow scribal guidelines also visible here. A detail
of page from the Tibetan Selkar Kanjur. The British Library Collection (OR 672A, vol. 56).

Most of the manuscripts were written in dbu can script, irrespective of which
group they belonged to. However, the quality and techniques of writing differ
to a great extent, depending on the artistic skills of the scribes. The frontispiece
from the Johnson Museum, the frontispiece from the RRE private collection and
the Sel dkar Kanjur from the British Library are distinguished by their beautiful
calligraphy. Other books begin with steady writing and later appear to decrease
in quality, or sometimes fragments of a book are written sloppily. Such fragments
may have been written by a different, less skilled scribe. This can be observed

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

283

in the Diamond Sutra from the Asia and Pacific Museum in Warsaw, written in
gold. Throughout centuries, a bamboo pen was considered the best instrument
for writing Tibetan. A special knife for cutting a bamboo tree to make a pen was
therefore a valuable tool, regarded as equally important.

The number of text lines usually ranges from four to nine, depending on the
book format and size of the letters. However, the rule for increasing the number of
verses of text on the first pages was repeated in most of the manuscripts studied.
In the manuscript frontispiece written in gold ink on black-inked paper from the
Johnson Museum, Cornell University, the title is written in two lines on the verso
page of the book cover. Three lines of text are on the recto side of the frontispiece,
and eight text lines are on the verso page of the frontispiece - this suggests that
the missing rest of the book may be written in eight lines of text per page.

Taking another example presumed to be from the 15*^ century, the Lotus Sutra
(Tibetan ms. 6) from the Columbia University Library written in golden and silver
ink on a black-inked background has six text lines on the first page (recto), and
seven text lines on the second page (verso). The text is written in dbu can script,
characterised by square, relatively wide letters. This type of script is characteris¬
tic of the Tibetan printing heritage, yet most of the manuscripts under examina¬
tion also used this script.

Another common element in Tibetan manuscripts is rubric, which is the
special type of text marking that served as instructional guides to the reader,
providing descriptive headings and marking divisions in the text. Thus, empha¬
sis was placed on more important words in Tibetan manuscripts by using gold,
silver, or red ink, or different sized letters. For example, in Tibetan ms. 6, men¬
tioned above, fragments of text are marked with gold ink. At the beginning, each
page contains gold and silver text fragments alternately, the first line starting
with gold. This pattern continues every second line on the first page, and on four
later leaves some words are marked off with gold. The last page has a golden tri¬
angle with words written in gold on a background vdth silver text lines. The rest
of the manuscript was written with silver ink (Figure 3).

In the 13* century manuscript Mngon par rtogs pa’i rgyan gyi ‘grel bshad
thegpa chen po la ‘jugpa shes bya ba (LTWA 14459), written in dbu med script,
there are nine lines per page. The base text lines are hardly visible, painted in a
colour similar to the paper, possibly juice of cypress turmeric. Sanskrit words are
marked off with red ink. Margins are clearly sketched, also in red, on the title page
they measure 10-12 cm, on the other pages 2.5-4 cm, and the upper and bottom
margins are 1-2 cm.

284

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

Fig- 3: Lotus Sutra (Tibetan ms. 6) Columbia University Library. IS**" century.

Fig- 4: Front page decorated with miniatures and ornamental frames, with curtain attached
above, in the Tibetan Selkar Kanjur. The British Library Collection (OR 6724, vol. 65).

Both groups of manuscripts, those written in black ink on raw paper and those
written in gold on blue or black paper, often contain miniatures representing
the Buddhist pantheon, usually related to the text or to the patron’s preferences.
Sometimes they were painted directly on the written page, sometimes they were

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

285

attached later to the frontispiece and mounted together with many independent
elements, such as particular layers, curtains or additional paper frames. This can
be observed in the London Sel dkar Kanjur or in the Johnson Museum’s frontis¬
piece (Figure 4). In this case, a sharp tool was also used to create vertical and
horizontal lines corresponding to side margins, and to designate the space for the
subsequent addition of miniatures. Furthermore, the typical ornament occurring
in manuscripts is a variation of an endless knot. This type of ornament can be
seen in almost all gold manuscripts in this study and also a few others written in
black ink.

3.2 Book format and bookbinding

An important feature for typology is the book format and bookbinding style. Tra¬
ditional Tibetan books are designated by more than one term {dpe cha, glegs bam
or deb thar), the content and form being directly inspired by the traditional Indian
palm-leaf books called grantha or later pustaka. Preliminary research based on
descriptions of Tibetan book formats and binding styles in existing objects has
shown that most Tibetan books, regardless of textual content, were in the pothi
format, which consists of loose leaves, with each leaf being made up of several
layers of paper glued together, covered with boards made of wood, or layers of
paper joined with strips made of paper or leather (Figure 5).

It should be noted that the term ‘bookbinding’ is understood as the process
of physically assembling a book from a number of folded or unfolded sheets
of paper or other material. It reflects a general qualification for the variation
between different copies of the same edition of a book cased in publisher’s cloth,
whether those variations involve the book structure, colour, fabric, lettering, or
decoration.^ It is a little tricky to define binding variants when dealing with loose-
leaf books, particularly because it is rare that all binding elements are preserved.
Elements of binding for the Tibetan pothi format include: stock of leaves, fabric
cover, labels and covers. Since most parts of this type of binding are separate and
easy to replace, loose-leaf book construction can pose limitations to the unifica¬
tion of the binding style.

However, elements of pothi binding still have some variety, such as different
covers, curtains, and frontispieces, and also vary according to the presence or
absence of those elements. Covers can be made of wood or paper, veneer with
textile, or metal fitting. Some of the covers have silk curtains covering minia-

7 For further explanation, see Carter / Barker 2004, 41.

286

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

Fig- 5: Liberation through Hearing in the Intermediate State (bar do thos grol), often called the
Tibetan Book of the Dead, The British Library (OR 15190).

Lures, similar to the coverings of thangkas. For example, in the Liberation through
Hearing in the Intermediate State (bar do thos grol), often called the Tibetan Book
of the Dead in Western popular literature, from the British Library (OR 15190), the
upper cover is made of a wooden plank, wrapped in paper dyed with indigo and
glued to the cover with a top layer of silk. The same cover is carved and painted on
the inside, with two silk respect-curtains attached to the top. The plank is made of
softwood cut radially vdth a finished surface.

A different type of cover was found in the Herbert Johnson Museum of Art.
This cover measures 18-18,5 cm x 68,7 cm, and is made of layered paper joined
together vdth leather strips. A green silk curtain was attached to the upper part of
the cover (Figure 6). The paper sheets were never glued together, instead mounted
with leather or paper strips. Aside from the cover and frontispiece, all other leaves
of the book are missing. However, it is clear that the manuscript was composed of
loose leaves and it is very possible that the book had an additional wooden cover,
since that was typical in this type of manuscript, which was made as a special
offering or gift.

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

287

Fig. 6: Illuminated cover and frontispiece of Eight Thousand Lines Perfection of Wisdom Sutra
(Accession number: 2006.028a, b). The Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University.

As previously mentioned, the majority of the objects in these collections are in a
loose-leaf format, but in a variety of sizes. Tibetan scribes did alter the size of the
page, largely because they were using materials different from palm leaves. The
sizes range from very small pothi books similar in proportions to palm leaves, to
quite large volumes of Kanjur measuring 73.2 cm x 26.8 cm, as is the case with the
‘Handwritten Kanjur of Berlin’ acquired in 1889 by von Brandt (Peking-Kanjur),
handwritten in black and red ink, and preserved in the Berlin State Library, mea¬
suring 73.2 cm X 26.8 cm.

Many other examples of Tibetan binding styles, such as scrolls, concertina
or bound books (boarded, stitched booklets) were seen in the collections of
the British Library, the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives and the Tibetan
Museum in Lhasa.

A couple of scrolls were found among the Dunhuang collection. The con¬
certina form of the book was found in the British Library (MS 13092), and many
other examples are in the Jagiellonian University Library, located in the part of

288

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

the collection called Pander A. In the bound books, a variety of kinds of mounting
(folding and division of leaves into quires), serving, and arrangements could be
found. The common viewpoint among many researchers is that very few bound
books exist in Tibet, and most of them are thought to be recent. However, some
sewn books written in Tibetan exist all over the world and are dated from the
about the 10* century to the present. The possible origin of binding techniques,
as well as terminology for them, have to be discussed. One possibility is that this
type of binding was derived from Persian origins. This form is called deb ther
in Tibetan, possibly from the Persian daftar, bound at the top and largely made
for official, chancellery purposes.® For example, the Tibetan Pharmacy from the
Ethnographic Museum in Cracow consists of two manuscripts. One of them is a
medical treaty in the pothi form, and the second one is a register of drugs in the
form of a sewn book. Another interesting observation is that this type of book can
also be written in gold, as is the case with a gold manuscript containing Tibetan
religious text from the collection of the British Library (MS 13162). This manuscript
of 42 leaves measuring 18,5 cm x 7,5 cm x 2 cm was brought as a gift from Bhutan
in 1866. It is a stitched book composed of three sections, the middle covered vdth
cloth and the sides covered vdth silk. Three sections covered separately before
sewing make up the spine of this manuscript (Figure 7).

Fig- 7: Manuscript written in gold with Tibetan religious text brought as a gift from Bhutan in
1866. The British Library (MS 13162).

3.3 Writing support

When Tibetans chose paper as the support for their scriptures, two other materi¬
als with stronger roots in Indian Buddhist tradition had already existed - birch

8 Persian daftar is understood as a collection of written leaves or sheets (forming a book for
registration); hence ‘a register of accounts’; a ‘register of soldiers or pensioners’; a ‘register of
the rights or dues of the State, or relating to the acts of government, the finances and the admin¬
istration’; also any book, and especially a collection of the poems of some particular poets. See:
<http://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Persian_origin#D>

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

289

bark and palm leaves. Birch bark was available across the Himalayas and was
especially favoured by Kashmiris. It was knovm to and used by the Tibetans from
at least the century onwards.® There is a book written on birch bark in the form
of a bound book with a leather cover, which resembles the Kashmiri or Arabic
style. According to the exhibition in the Tibetan Museum in Lhasa, this book
dates to the time of Srongbtsan sgampo (7*^ century). The book was not available
for closer examination; however, taking into consideration its form and binding
style, it must be a much later copy of the aforementioned text.

The paper support of manuscripts is one of the most important physical fea¬
tures which can serve as a distinguishing mark and help provide information
about the origin of a manuscript, or furthermore its purpose and significance.
Therefore, the documentation of paper features in manuscripts is one of the
most crucial aspects of typology. In some cases, the identification of materials
(resources) and their origin can even directly result in much quicker classification
of manuscripts than translation of their textual content, since the examination of
paper or other materials is an independent and objective source of information
about a book. Here, I propose a combination of three levels of criteria for a typol¬
ogy of Tibetan paper: the raw material used, the type of papermaking mould, and
the preparation of the leaves before writing.

Identifying raw material used for paper production can help identify the
paper’s origin. When comparing the results of fibre analyses of ancient books
with the location of occurrence of the same plant, we can obtain information
about the book’s possible region of origin.“ The area suggested by plant occur¬
rence can be critically evaluated by other sources of information, such as textual
content, layout of page and manuscript form. In this manner, the examination of
these features can help determine whether or not the book originates from the
same area or region that is understood to be its cultural context. For example, the
key question for studying the fibre composition of papers in manuscripts found
in Dunhuang and preserved in the British Library was about the beginning of
Tibetan papermaking, the date of which has only been assumed until now. In
addition to ramie, paper mulberry, and hemp fibres, mostly components of rag
paper, which represent forty-one samples from the Dunhuang manuscripts, the
Thymelaeaceae family plant fibres were also identified.^^ The oldest manuscripts
written on paper made of the Thymelaeaceae family plants were dated to the 9*
century. This supports the view that Tibetans were able to make paper by the 9*
century at the latest and they apparently utilised this type of plant - which widely

9 Reynolds 1991, 21.

10 Helman-Wazny 2009b.

11 Helman-Wazny 2009b.

290

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

occurs in the Himalayas - as raw material for technology invented and practiced
by Chinese communities.

The paper of the manuscript from the Johnson Museum was most likely glued
into layers using starch paste and painted with black ink. Due to the painted black
ink layer and surface preparation, it was not possible to see the paper structure
clearly, which is why the type of papermaking mould could not be identified. Fibre
composition analysis shows that paper mulberry fibres were used for making this
paper. This suggests that the paper was definitely handmade. However, paper
mulberry fibres are not typical for Tibetan books and were used in China rather
than in Tibet. This may suggest that very fine paper could have been imported for
making this manuscript.

The second criterion allows for a typology regarding differences in technol¬
ogy. Here, handmade woven paper (with a print of textile sieve), handmade laid
paper (with a print of chain and laid lines left by the papermaking mould), and
machine made paper can be distinguished according to the type of papermaking
mould used. Since we generally know the geographic range in which the par¬
ticular type of mould was used and the differences in sheet formation technol¬
ogy that occur, we can determine the region of a book’s origin on the basis of
this identification. All aforementioned paper supports were identified during this
study. There were books containing paper sheets that had been made by adher¬
ing together two to ten layers of handmade woven or laid paper. Books written
on woven paper, such as most of the Sel dkar Kanjur, were usually composed of
two to four layers of paper glued together. This type of paper was usually made
of plants from the Thymeleaceae family. Books written on the Chinese type of
laid paper, made using a movable type of mould, characterized by its thin and
even structure, usually contained more than five layers of paper. This was neces¬
sary because such a thin type of paper could not be used as a one-layered sheet
to produce the thicker leaf required for a large format, as the Tibetan Kanjur
volumes usually are. The Berlin manuscript Kanjur from the Berlin State Library
is written on this Chinese type made of many layers. There were also objects made
up of single-layer leaves, usually machine-made paper originated in Russia.
Many examples of Russian-type machine-made paper can be seen in the Asia and
Pacific Museum in Warsaw.One-third of the Polish collection of Tibetan books
was written on single-layer leaves, mostly machine-made paper sheets. Some of
the Tibetan books contained both types of leaf preparation, with a vastly different
number of paper layers within the same book. For example, in the collection of
the Asia and Pacific Museum in Warsaw, it was possible to single out three kinds

12 This type of paper is described in detail in the article: Helman-Wazny 2007.

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

291

of paper supports: seventeen examples were of handmade woven paper, thirty
were handmade laid paper, and thirty-six were machine-made paper. Such a pro¬
portion is characteristic for 19*^ and 20*^ century papers.

The third level of criteria for the preparation of the leaves includes the con¬
struction of the leaf and the visual properties of its surface, such as dying the
paper or exposing it to insect-repellent substances (which might change the
colour of raw paper), as well as sizing the paper, gluing it in layers and polishing
its surface. As a general rule, more precious and better quality manuscripts were
written on more heavily processed paper. Thus, the paper for a Tibetan traditional
manuscript sponsored by wealthy patrons usually has been highly processed.
This includes methods such as sizing and polishing, drawing numerous lines as
a base for Tibetan text using a sandalwood stick, drawing a frame with red ink on
the edges of the paper, and in the end, properly executing a text.

3.4 Dating and regional origin

One objective of the research undertaken here is to determine the origin and prov¬
enance of every object. Provenance may designate either the place of origin of a
manuscript or the various places where the manuscript has been preserved. It is
best used to designate the place of origin or the single earliest known place of
preservation. The study of the material and physical history of books and, in more
practical terms, the identification of similarities between particular volumes with
a focus on identifying the scriptoria (e.g. monasteries) that produced them, can
help locate the book in a place and time. The same is true of the history of readers
and reading, and of literary tastes: who reads or collects which books, and why?
This can sometimes be determined through marks of ownership in books.

It should be emphasized that there are many books without any chronologi¬
cal information in the text or colophon that would help allocate them to a certain
place or period. In such cases, the best results again can be obtained by creating
a typology of particular features. For example, the identification of Tibetan cal¬
ligraphy can provide a very helpful indication of its time of origin, since some cal-
ligraphies were only used within a certain timeframe. However, our knowledge
of calligraphies and when they were used is not sufficient. Routine art-historical
methods seem to be less effective for books. Miniatures and ornaments occurring
in Tibetan manuscripts have usually been painted by Buddhist monks according
to the same formal rules, or even stencils, that they have always followed, and
they are never signed by the artist. There is also no clear chronology of painting
styles for them that could be used as a reference. On the other hand, iconography

292

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

and painting styles can suggest the Buddhist tradition, and further provide hints
to the region of origin.

There is no doubt that the material composition provides a good source of
information for determining the authenticity of Tibetan books. As previously
mentioned, comparing the fibre composition of the paper with the areas of the
plant’s regional distribution can give information about the book’s origin. The
composition of pigments, along with other media analyses, can also help if one
traces this historically and compares it vdth the dates when new methods came
into use in the history of the craft, such as papermaking and ink making. The
chemical composition of the ink can be useful in dating a document when com¬
pared to the regional history of changes in inks and paints. The results found
regarding the optical characteristics of the paper, fibre composition, presence of
glue or paste in the paper, or the analyses of pigments and other media could also
be supported by dendrochronology of wooden covers and radiocarbon dating.

Book covers are also potential sources of information, but a loose-leaf con¬
struction can pose limitations. To draw clues from the covers, first of all we have
to be sure that they are truly part of the book. For example, a century hand¬
written London Sel dkar Kanjur in the British Library, brought to England by the
Younghusband expedition, contains covers that seem properly suited in size at
first sight, yet the application of the lacquer and gold decorations was slightly
less careful than the technique used for the book leaves. Accordingly, wood iden¬
tification showed that the covers were made of tropical wood indigenous to India,
not Tibet. Such wood was usually not transported over long distances. However,
in this case the wood was brought to Tibet from a quite distant area. Thus, taking
into consideration a difference in the quality of the book leaves and the covers,
one can assume that the covers were made later than the book leaves and possi¬
bly added by one of the previous owners, or even ordered by Younghusband just
before all the books were sent to England via India.

A good example of gleaning clues about dating and origin is the Libera¬
tion through Hearing in the Intermediate State {bar do thos grot) from the British
Library. This is a Tibetan manuscript produced on Chinese-type paper, with a fibre
composition based on paper mulberry/ramie, straw and possibly bamboo. Those
were the most popular raw materials for papermaking and also typical compo¬
nents for xuan paper. This type of paper, featuring narrow distances in between
laid lines, was made by hand with a movable type of mould with a fine, narrow
bamboo sieve. It shows a thin layer of paper use and was dyed indigo by a dipping
technique - all these characteristics suggest that the paper is of Chinese origin.
On one side, a natural colour margin is left (1.5 cm) - the place for a finger to grip
while pulling the paper through the dyeing solution (Figure 8). The book was not
dated, but the 18* century was deduced from the text. The wooden book cover

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

293

was analyzed using a non-destructive method of measuring the rings. Prelimi¬
nary results of dendrochronological analyses suggest that the book cover could
originate from East Tibet due to its similarity to the chronology of that region.
Radiocarbon dating shows the last 300 years plateau on the calibration line, but
with the highest probability of originating within the time spans of 1680-1770 or
1800-1940.

Fig. 8: Liberation through Hearing in the Intermediate State (bar do thos grol), often called the
Tibetan Book of the Dead, The British Library (OR 15190).

Another example is the frontispiece and cover from the manuscript in the Herbert
Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell University. The style of clothing and hair deco¬
rations suggest that the manuscript comes from the western part of Tibet. Addi¬
tionally, the style of painting (colours, red outline drawing technique) is similar
to those which we can observe in murals of the Tsaparang Monastery in western
Tibet (Guge Kingdom). The next clue is that the Johnson Museum folios are very
similar to the book cover (with the same Sanskrit title, but spelled differently) and
a frontispiece of a gold manuscript from the RRE collection described in a modern
catalogue^'* and dated to the late 15* century from Guge, western Tibet. However,
this similarity suggests that both manuscripts should be very carefully checked.

13 Tomasz Wazny 2009, personal communication.

14 Pal 2003,158-159, 290.

294

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

since they may have been painted by the same workshop, using the same stencils.
One may as well be a repetition of the other, since some parts are identical but
others are related only in general style. They might also be from different volumes
of the same set of Prajnaparamita manuscripts.

4 Conclusions

This preliminary research on manuscripts written in Tibetan shows the great
potential of the “archaeology of books” but also a need to expand the group of
manuscripts to be examined. The descriptions of particular objects has resulted
in the standardisation of terminology and the concept of a catalogue form,
expanded with the results of material examination.

Overall, I have examined more than two hundred manuscripts from a variety
of collections. I have prepared brief descriptions of physical features of these
manuscripts. The pieces of information gathered for every manuscript will serve
as a reference for further study and will help in the classification of unknown
manuscripts. Furthermore, on the long term, once a sufficiently representative
group of these particular types of manuscripts have been examined, I expect to
gain the knowledge of the model typology, which will allow manuscripts to be
classified by specific features and relate them to particular regional origins. This
should be possible as soon as we know the form which different type of texts
usually take in a given place or region of Tibet, or even in a particular monastery.

The documented forms of Tibetan manuscripts have showed a relationship
between functions served by particular book formats and the utility of these
books. This can be observed when one compares the text content and format of
loose-leaf pothi books to those that were sewn. Furthermore, devotional and reli¬
gious purposes highly influenced the form and quality of Tibetan manuscripts
because of the intent to gain spiritual merit. Furthermore, generally speaking,
manuscripts can be divided into the categories of cheap simple books written by
nonprofessional scribes for their own purposes and very precious collections of
books, such as scribal publications of the Tibetan Buddhist Canon sponsored by
wealthy people. The division between manuscripts written in gold and in black
ink can be superimposed on the previous two categories. A further analysis of
the relationship between the book form and its utility could contribute to a better
understanding of legal and social roles that manuscripts play in Tibet, and also
explain the survival of the manuscript culture after the invention of the printing
press. The coexistence of manuscripts and prints in Tibet until the 20*^ century is
very significant within Tibetan culture, and cannot easily be explained without

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

295

thorough study of Tibetan books in the wider context of the transmission of print¬
ing technology from China westward. Printed books, being cheaper and widely
disseminated, are incomparable with precious works distributed in manuscript
copies.

The identification of fibre composition and other technological features of
paper help answer some questions about the origin, trade and import of paper
and manuscripts in Central Asia. Much more research needs to be done in order
to achieve a higher precision of regional estimation. However, without a doubt,
this preliminary study confirms that results of paper examination give indepen¬
dent evidence and contribute to the knowledge of the history of crafts related
to book production. Based on the examination of paper in Tibetan manuscripts
from Dunhuang, it was possible to estimate a date for the beginning of paper¬
making in Tibet. In the same way, a book can be dated by collecting information
derived from all possible sources for the purpose of creating a typology, or by
independent scientific methods, such as radiocarbon dating and dendrochronol¬
ogy for wooden covers.

The preliminary typology of Tibetan manuscripts described in this article
suggests the existence of “local book cultures”, and goes beyond the simple divi¬
sion between Tibetan and Chinese papers which is presently used.

Appendix: Collections of Tibetan manuscripts
understudy

The following institutions and their collections of Tibetan books were examined
for this study:

1 Asia and Pacific Museum in Warsaw, surveyed 1997-2005. This museum pos¬
sesses the largest collection of traditional Tibetan books in Poland. Initially,
most of the museum’s holdings came from the private collection of Andrzej
Wawrzyniak, a Polish diplomat and sailor who later became director of the
museum. The collection comprises a variety of different book types brought
chiefly from Mongolia and Nepal, and provides a good selection of 19* and
20* century books written in the Tibetan language. 60 books were selected
for detailed research and elaborated in a monograph.^

2 Pomeranian Library in Szczecin, surveyed 2002-2003. This collection is asso¬
ciated with the Buddhist Book Project Poland, which has established a very

15 Helman-Wazny 2009a.

296

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

good library and possesses many reprints. For the present study, one manu¬
script was chosen for detailed examination.^®

3 Ethnographic Museum in Cracow, surveyed 2002-2005. This museum pos¬
sesses a very small collection of Tibetan books. However, an interesting
and unique object, the Tibetan Pharmacy, was located there and chosen for
research. It is one of the earliest Tibetan artefacts in Poland. It was purchased
and brought to Poland by Witold Swiatopelk-Mirski, donated to the Polish
Academy of Arts and Sciences in Cracow by Prof. Julian Talko-Hryncewicz
in 1908 and later transferred to the museum in 1921. The Tibetan Pharmacy
contains 2 handwritten books and additionally almost 300 medications
with descriptions, each contained in separate bottles and sacks. It is one of
the largest collections of Tibetan drugs from the 19* century preserved in
Europe.

4 Jagiellonian University Library in Cracow, which has fortunately preserved
the Pander collection, originally from the Berlin State Library, surveyed since
2002. It contains a collection of Tibetan texts that was thought to have been
lost during World War II. Within the Pander Pantheon catalogue, I identified
the Wanli Kanjur as well as other fragments of different Kanjur editions. To
this date, 60 books have been described, and 250 viewed in the context of this
project, together with Marek Mejor and Thupten Kunga Chashab. The entire
Pander collection comprises 865 books.

5 British Library collection, surveyed since 2005. Particular books from the
Stein collection were chosen for examination based on their binding diver¬
sity. Finally, 11 books were selected to illustrate different types (or styles) of
Tibetan binding.^® Two manuscripts were additionally chosen to represent a
special form of Tibetan craftsmanship, since they were written in gold on a
blue or black background. Additionally, 47 manuscripts written in Tibetan
dated to around the 8*-10* century AD and found in Library Cave 17 in Dun-
huang were examined for their particular type of paper and book format.
This research was conducted in connection with an IDP project at the British
Library, and the results are being entered into the IDP database.

16 For more information about this manuscript, see; Helman-Wazny 2003.

17 Helman-Wazny 2009a, 142-151,192-194.

18 For the history and preliminary examination of this collection, see Helman-Wazny 2009c or
Mejor / Helman-Wazny / Thupten Kunga Chashab 2010.

19 Books singled out to represent different styles of Tibetan binding are: 13162, MS 13092, OR
11376, OR 14727 (1-2), OR 14728, OR 15190, OR 15193, OR MS 12163, TIB CC 074, TIB CC 101, TIB CC
114-115.

20 These books were 13162 and OR 15190.

Tibetan manuscripts: Between History and Science

297

6 Library of Tibetan Works and Archives founded by the XIV Dalai Lama of
Tibet in 1970, surveyed in March 2005. This is one of the most important
institutions in the wtorld dedicated to the preservation and dissemination of
Tibetan Culture. There are more than 70,000 Tibetan manuscripts and doc¬
uments preserved in the library, and the collection is still expanding. The
history of the collection is almost impossible to trace, because a large number
of objects in it have lost their identities. It is not knovm where the majority
were taken from and what their origin is. The purpose of my visit was a con¬
servation survey for this collection. Additionally, three manuscripts, a couple
of freelance wooden covers and a selection of administrative documents were
particularly examined.^^ I also had the opportunity to examine writing tools
and two gold manuscripts from the collection of the Tibetan Museum situ¬
ated in the same building.

7 Tibetan Museum in Lhasa, holds one interesting object in particular; a book
vnritten on birch bark and bound with a leather cover. I considered this item
for research on bookbinding styles. However, it was not accessible for closer
examination.

8 Cornell University, Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art, where an illuminated
cover and frontispiece, part of a manuscript written in gold on black paper,
were examined.

9 Columbia University Library, Rare Book and Manuscript Collection, from
which five gold manuscripts were examined. They were examined for textual
content by Robert Thurman. The source of the manuscripts is unclear,
although they may have been among the Tibetan manuscripts transferred
from the East Asian Library to Herbert Lehman American History Collections
in 1980/81, kept presently by the Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Colum¬
bia University.

21 To find more information in materials published by the library, see; The Library of Tibetan
Works and Archives 1997. The manuscripts under study have acc. No. 14459, 14532, 23585. At the
same time, about 300 historical and administrative documents were catalogued and examined
by Prof Schwiegers’ team of researchers from Bonn University.

22 Helman-Wazny 2008.

298

Agnieszka Helman-Wazny

References

Berkwitz, Stephen C. / Schober, Juliane / Brown, Claudia (eds.) (2009), Buddhist Manuscript
Cultures: Knowledge, Ritual and Art, New York: Routledge.

Blordor (ed.) (1990), sDe srid sangs rgyas rgya mtsho, mChod sdong ’dzam gling rgyan gcig gi
dkarchag, Tibet National publishing house (Bod Ijongs mi dmngs dpe skrun khang).

Carter, John / Barker, Ntcolas (lOOtt), ABC for Book Collectors, Newcastle, Del.: Oak Knoll Press
and British Library.

Gruijs, Albert (1972), “Codicology or the Archaeology of the book? A false dilemma”, in:
Quaerendo 2, no. 2, 87-108.

Helman-Wazny, Agnieszka (2003), “The Diamond Sutra in the Collection of the Pomeranian
Library of Szczecin in the Historical and Artistic Context of Buddhist Books from Central
Asia”, in: Journal of Conservation-Restoration lA, no. 3-A, A9-57.

Helman-Wazny, Agnieszka (2007), “Tibetan manuscripts: scientific examination and

conservation approaches”, in: jaques, Shulla (ed.), Edinburgh Conference Papers2006:
Proceedings from the Fifth international Conference of the Institute of Paper Conservation
and First international Conference of the Institute of Conservation, Book and Paper Group,
London: Institute of Conservation (ICON), 247-256.

Helman-Wazny, Agnieszka (2008), Examination of the Tibetan illuminated book cover and
frontispiece of Eight Thousand Lines Perfection of Wisdom Sutra (Acc. Number: 2006.028
a,b). Report for H. Johnson Museum of Art, Cornell University.

Helman-Wazny, Agnieszka (2009a), Sztuka tybetahskich ksiqg klasztornych {The Art of Tibetan
Traditional Books), Warszawa: publishing house Trio.

Helman-Wazny, Agnieszka (2009b), “Local papermaking, paper trade and book-culture

promotion in Inner Asia”, in: Levlin, J.-E. (ed.), IPH Congress Book 17/2008, Stockholm/
Eupen: IPH., 173-186.

Helman-Wazny, Agnieszka (2009c), “Recovering a lost literary heritage. Preliminary research
on the Wanli bka’ 'gyur from Berlin”, in: Journal of the International Association of Tibetan
Studies, no. 5,1-27.

Mejor, Marek / Helman-Wazny, Agnieszka / Thupten Kunga Chashab (eds.) (2010), A Preliminary
Report on the Wanli Kanjur Kept at the Jagiellonian Library, Krakow, Research Centre
of Buddhist Studies, Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Warsaw, Warsaw (Studia
Buddhica 1).

Reynolds, Valrae (1991), “Discoveries About Tibetan Manuscripts in the Newark Museum”, in:
Hand Papermaking 6, no. 2, 20-23.

Pal, Pratapaditya (2003), Himalayas. An Aesthetic Adventure, Chicago: The Art Institute of
Chicago.

Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina A. (1999), “Towards a Methodology for the Study of Old Tibetan
Manuscripts: Dunhuang and Tabo.”, in: Tabo Studies2: Manuscripts, Texts, inscriptions
and the Arts edited by Cristina Scherrer-Schaub and Ernst Steinkellner, 3-36. Rome:

Istituto Italiano per I’Africa e I’Oriente.

Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina and George Bonani (2002), “Establishing a typology of the old

Tibetan manuscripts: a multidisciplinary approach.” in: Dunhuang Manuscript Forgeries
edited by Susan Whitfield (2002), 184-215. London: The British Library.

Szirmai, Janos A. (1999), The Archaeology of Medieval Bookbinding, London: Ashgate.

The Library of Tibetan Works and Archives (1997), Dharamsala, Himachal Pradesh, India.

Sam van Schaik

Towards a Tibetan Palaeography: Developing
a Typology of Writing Styles in Early Tibet

1 Introduction

The study of ancient writings, or palaeography, has been practised under that
name in Europe since the 17* century. Growing out of the scholars’ need to read
manuscripts in archaic writing styles, it developed into a historical classifica¬
tion of styles, and an analysis of how styles developed over time and in different
places. In general the development of the field of palaeography itself has followed
a trajectory which begins with the subjective description of the connoisseur and
ends with precise measurement and quantative data of the scientist.^

When we move away from European manuscripts, palaeography has a shorter
history. Due to British colonial interests and archeological expeditions in India a
palaeography of Indian writing developed from the late 19* century onward, cul¬
minating in several important (and now standard) works that set out a typology
of Indian scripts based on their form, date and geographical location.^ When we
come to Tibet, it may not be an exaggeration to say that the study of Tibetan pal¬
aeography has yet to come into existence. Although ancient Tibetan manuscripts
and inscriptions have been available since the early 20* century, study of the
scripts found in these sources has been restricted to a few passing observations.
Recently, Cristina Scherrer-Schaub has published some suggestions as to the out¬
lines of a Tibetan palaeography and codicology. Her preliminary periodisation

1 I would like to thank the Leverhulme Trust for funding the project that made this research pos¬
sible, and Susan Whitfield for her support of the project. 1 would also like to thank Jan-Ulrich
Sobisch for the invitation to present the paper on early Tibetan manuscript cultures that formed
the basis for the present study, Jacqueline Austin for sharing her palaeographical research on the
Vindolanda tablets, Bruno Laine for providing manuscript images from Tabo, Pasang Wangdu
for discussing his discovery of tenth-century manuscripts in Central Tibet, and Kazushi Iwao and
Imre Galambos for their valuable comments.

2 The first exponent of ‘modern’ palaeography is often said to be Jean Mabillon (d.l707), and the
discipline is sometimes thought to have peaked with the work of Jean Mallon (d.l982). However,
the best example of the ‘scientific’ or quantative method in modern palaeography is perhaps
Gilissen’s L’expertise des ecritures medievales (Gilissen 1973).

3 The first major typological study was Georg Biihler’s Indische Palaeographie (Buhler 1896,
translated into English in 1904). Later works often take Buhler as their basis. The most compre¬
hensive of the typological descriptions are Dani 1963 and Sander 1968. A recent summary of this
material is Salomon 1998.

300

Sam van Schaik

of three phases incorporates elements of Tibetan orthography, manuscript forms
and decoration and covers the 10* century through to the 16*.''

What the study of Tibetan writing still lacks is that basic point of departure for
palaeographic studies in other fields: a typology of writing styles. In the palaeog¬
raphy of European manuscripts, early typologies have been refined, criticised,
or rejected in favour of new models. The very idea of a typological description
has even been questioned. Nevertheless, this whole intellectual endeavour has
been conducted on the basis of the script typologies developed by early palaeog¬
raphers.^ Typology is surely still the first step in establishing a serious palaeog¬
raphy.

A script typology has a number of applications;

(i) On the level of immediate practical use, a fully-descriptive typology is a teach¬
ing tool for reading manuscript sources. Most of the attendees at modern
palaeography workshops are historians seeking this kind of instruction.

(ii) Different styles of writing are closely linked to different socio-economic
groups, and there is also a correspondence between styles and subject-mat¬
ter. Thus identification of a script type can help determine the social and his¬
torical context of a manuscript. Where styles can be localized, this can also
help determine the geographical location of manuscript production.

(iii) Through examining the morphology of styles and orthography as they
develop over time, we can begin to describe the historical development of a
writing system.*’ While interesting in itself, such a description also has a prac¬
tical application in providing us with models for dating manuscripts accord¬
ing to writing style.

In setting out here a preliminary typology for Tibetan writing I hope to show how
it can, at least potentially, be put to all of these uses.

1.1 The Tibetan alphabet

The Tibetan alphabet is a syllabic script, created in the mid-7th century based on
the Indie Brahmi script of that period. The alphabet contains 30 consonants, each

4 See Scherrer-Schaub 1999 and 2002. The typologies presented here all fall within the first
phase of Scherrer-Schaub’s periodization.

5 See the discussion of nomenclature in Delorez 2003,13-17.

6 In this paper I use the word script to refer to a particular alphabet (“the Tibetan script” for
example); I use orthography to refer to the formal structure of individual letters; and I use style to
refer to variant ways of writing a script, which need not differ very much in orthography.

Tibetan Palaeography

301

of which contains the inherent vowel -a. Vowel modifiers for the sounds -i, -u,
-e and -o are written above or below the consonants. In addition, letters may be
“stacked” vertically, and there are special forms for some letters in these stacks.
The basic unit is the syllable, and syllables are separated with a small dot called
tsheg. Larger units (somewhat, but not exactly like sentences) are separated with
a vertical stroke called shad. Tibetan is written horizontally from left to right.

The Tibetan tradition distinguishes two basic types of Tibetan script, the
“headed” or uchen (dbu can) and the “headless” or ume (dbu med). The first
script is characterized by short horizontal lines (the ‘heads’) along the tops of
many letters, like the serifs of the Latin script, while the second script dispenses
with these lines. There are numerous different styles within the headless script,
including a simple style for teaching children, ornamental styles for official
edicts, and a very cursive style for handwriting.^

These styles are explained in numerous modern Tibetan calligraphy man¬
uals.® The classic study of Tibetan writing, from which most later accounts are
dravm is the White Beryl of Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (1653-1705). These calligraphic
traditions must be treated with caution by the palaeographer. They are received
traditions which, while they may derive from older models, are not based on the
study of orignal specimens of ancient writing. The calligraphy manuals are also
fundamentally pedagogical rather than descriptive, setting out idealised model
script forms.® The quite different aims of the calligrapher and palaeographer mean

7 Styles of dbu med include the ’bru tsha, the dpe tshugs (‘book form’), and the ’khyug yig (‘run¬
ning script’), and variations on these known as tshugs ring (‘long form’), tshugs thung (‘short
form’) and tshugs chung (‘small form’). For a brief account, in English, of modern Tibetan writing
styles and their functions in an official context, see French 1995,155-158.

8 Such as Bkras Ihun dgon 2003.

9 Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho provides some very interesting discussions of the history of writing.
For example, he states:

The lineage of the development of the script after Thon mi, made to spread far and wide
by Khung po G.yu khri and Sum pa Gnod sbyin, comprises the greater and lesser Rdzab
(rdzab chen, rdzab chung), and the greater and lesser ’Bru (’bru chen, ’bru chung). Within
the greater Dru there are the the Li Tradition (li lugs) and the Ldan Tradition (Man lugs), the
“straight” (shar shar ma) and “twisted” (dkyus) scripts, among others. From these, the great
scriptures were written in the greater and lesser Rdzab; the commentaries of the Indian
scholars were written in the greater ’Bru; and the scriptural tradition of Tibetan scholars
was written in the lesser ’Bru. This is how the script spread. (White Beryl, p.l7)

Although it is not clear how these traditional historical typologies might relate to the extant
manuscripts, further work in this area may be fruitful. Some recent Tibetan calligraphy manuals
sometimes present script forms that are said to date from the earliest period of Tibetan writing
(often pre-dating the 7* century, when the Tibetan alphabet was almost certainly formulated).
Flowever, as I have argued elsewhere, these “old” forms are usually either based on much later

302

Sam van Schaik

that the calligraphy manuals, while they certainly should not be ignored, should
not determine a palaeography-based typology of Tibetan writing/”

Nor should we see the gap between calligraphic andpalaeographic approaches
to Tibetan writing as some sort of East-West division. The two traditions are
equally at odds in the area of European writing styles, as a recent palaeographer
has written:

The mutual misunderstandings between palaeographers and calligraphers, between his¬
torians and practitioners, each with their own distinctive goals, are not likely to be easily
removed, despite the growing interest among palaeographers in the work of calligraphers
and vice versa.^'

1.2 Source materials

In establishing a preliminary typology of Tibetan writing styles, it seems sensible
to begin with the earliest attested styles, and to move forward from there. Thus
the main source materials for this study are selected from the earliest surviving
examples of Tibetan writing. These are as follows:

(i) Stone inscriptions from Central Tibet and outlying regions of the Tibetan
Empire, dating from the mid-8*^ to mid-9**' century.

(ii) Wood and paper manuscripts excavated from military bases of the Tibetan
Empire in the Central Asian desert sites of Miran and Mazar Tagh, also dating
from the mid-8**' to mid-9* century.

(iii) Paper manuscripts from the ‘library cave’ at Dunhuang, dating from the early
9‘*' to end of the 10* century.

Overall, the chronological span of these sources is from the middle of the eighth
to the end of the 10* century - that is, the last century of the Tibetan Empire
and the century-and-a-half that followed the fall of the empire, known in the his-

Indic Nagari scripts or on variations on the later printed style headless script. See van Schaik
2011.

10 We should note here, though it is beyond the scope of this article, that the study of ancient
writing styles in China represents perhaps the longest-established calligraphic tradition, and
one that in its attention to the stylistic and orthographic variants of old writing forms is perhaps
the closest to palaeography as it is defined here. See for example Boltz 1994.

11 Delorez 2003, 27. It is clear that palaeographers can learn from the practical experience of
the calligraphers, and palaeographers who also practice calligraphy may be at some advantage.
Michelle Brown, a distinguished palaeographer-scribe, has co-authored a book on European
scripts with a calligrapher (Brown and Lovett 1999).

Tibetan Palaeography

303

torical tradition as ‘the age of fragmentation’. As we will see below, the fall of
the empire in the middle of the 9* century marks a paradigm shift in the devel¬
opment of Tibetan writing, and thus the typology will be presented here in two
parts, falling on either side of that shift.

It is too early at this stage to try to identify local styles of Tibetan vnriting. In
general the styles from the imperial period seem to be quite consistent across
the Tibetan imperial realm. After the fall of the empire it seems more likely that
we are seeing more localized writing styles. Nevertheless, some of the styles of
the Dunhuang manuscripts may be compared to contemporary and later develop¬
ments in writing in Central Tibet, as some recently discovered manuscripts indi¬
cate (see below). Manuscripts from the 11^^ to century - primarily from the
Tabo collection in Western Tibet and the Kharakhoto collection from the Tangut
kingdom in Central Asia - are helpful models for comparison.

1.3 Methodology

Many palaeographers are of the opinion that palaeography is an art, rather than
a science. For them, extensive firsthand experience of manuscripts is the only
means to acquiring the ability to judge script types and hence to date and localize
a manuscript. In this idea of palaeography, the palaeographer is a connoisseur,
whose judgement must be taken on faith, and cannot be fully communicated to
an outsider. It is largely derived from that least communicable of experiences, the
‘general impression’.

More recently, especially in the latter half the twentiehave attempted a more
scientific approach to their subject, based on the close study of the order and
direction of strokes - known as the ductus - in individual letter forms. While
there have been some exhaustive studies of letter forms based on such precise
measurements, most palaeographers have settled on isolating and analysing
certain key letter forms that are specific to a certain script, and using these to
help define that script. This kind of work lends itself much more easily to being
taught to others than the subjective judgements of the connoisseur.

The typology of early Tibetan writing presented here does inevitably owe
much the author’s own general impressions, gained from working closely with
the manuscripts for over ten years. However, it also attempts to render these
impressions communicable by oulining general features and describing key letter
forms from the different script types - although in this case space will only allow
a very brief illustration of this procedure.

The typology below is divided into two sections, the first on the styles in use
during the Tibetan imperial period, and the second on the styles from the follow-

304

Sam van Schaik

ing century-and-a-half. For each style type we will briefly present (i) the manu¬
script or epigraphic sources, with their dates and location, (ii) a general descrip¬
tion of the style including one or more key letter forms, and (iii) where relevant,
the lines of development that can be traced to the styles of later manuscripts.

2 Styles from the Tibetan imperial period

2.1 The epigraphic Style

2.1.1 Sources

The earliest instances of Tibetan writing were probably carved into wood. None
of these are now extant. In fact, the earliest examples of Tibetan writing now
available postdate the invention of the script itself by over a century. These are
the inscriptions on pillars and rock faces dating from the mid-8* to mid-9‘*’ centu¬
ries. Despite their distance from the first Tibetan writings, they are still very early
records, and represent the first known form of the Tibetan alphabet, the style
which I will term epigraphic, because of its appearance on stone inscriptions. We
can divide the early Tibetan inscriptions into three groups. The first, containing
the most important sources for the epigraphic style, is the pillar inscriptions from
Central Tibet; the second is a group of religious inscriptions from Northeastern
Tibet (Amdo); and the third is various examples of graffiti from the Ladakh area.

Fig- 1: Detail from the Lhasa treaty pillar. Photograph courtesy of Kazushi Iwao.

Tibetan Palaeography

305

The inscribed pillars (rdo rings) of Central Tibet are usually four-sided columns
capped with a square base and an ornamental capital/^

The Central Tibetan pillar inscriptions are generally records of a sworn
agreement {gtsigs), whether an edict, charter, or treaty. Most are direct records
of the king’s own authoritative speech, although some were commissioned by
ministers. Thus the context for this writing style is courtly and official. We know
nothing about the people who carved these pillars, but if the technique of Indian
inscriptions was adopted, there would have been a scribe who marked the letters
on the pillar, which were then inscribed by professional stone-cutters.^^

2.1.2 General description

The writing style of the pillar inscriptions is not identical in every inscription. The
inscriptions cover a period of about sixty years, and we do see developments in
both style and orthography during this time. For the purposes of this description,
I will concentrate on the similarities rather than the differences, and argue that
there was an epigraphic style in the Central Tibet. The style resembles in many
aspects the Indie scripts that were the basis or the invention of the Tibetan script
in the first half of the century, as I have shown elsewhere.^'* Indeed, the Indie
scripts of this period are known to Western palaeographers as ‘acute-angled’
scripts.^ As with other epigraphic scripts, the writing style of the Tibetan pillar
inscriptions tends to prefer straight lines, and does not extend lines any further
than necessary. In a similar fashion to Roman Capitals, the letters are evenly pro¬
portioned so that most would fit within the shape of a square (though the need to
vertically stack Tibetan letters requires a more flexible model).

This “square” character extends to the four-cornered shape of the letter ba,
and other letter elements like the head of ga. The “heads” of the letters also
adhere to this principle, being much longer than in later styles in letters like pa
and la (this again harks back to the Indie models for the Tibetan script).^® Other
features that are perhaps closer to the script’s Indie elements than to later styles
are the diagonal line that extends all the way from the bottom left to the top right

12 On the inscriptions, see Richardson 1985, Li and Goblin 1987, and Iwao and Hill 2008.

13 See Salomon 1998, 65-66.

14 See van Schaik 2011.

15 See Salomon 1998, 39-40.

16 Note that this feature is true of the earlier inscriptions, but not of the later, such as the Treaty
Pillar.

306

Sam van Schaik

of the pha, and the fact that the two downstrokes of the ta both descend from the
letter’s head.

The pillar inscriptions are also our best source for the archaic orthography
of Tibetan writing, including the strong da {da drag), supporting ’a {’a rten), the
reversed i vowel (gi gu rlog), the my- conjunct and the double tsheg. The Tibetan
tradition record standardisations of language and orthography during the reigns
of the Tibetan emperors Khri Srong Ide brtsan (756-797) and Khri Lde srong
brtsan (c.800-815). Indeed, over the six decades covered by the inscriptions, we
do see some of these archaic orthographic features gradually being purged from
the writing. In the inscriptions dating from after the second standardisation, for
example, there is a decline in the frequency of the use of the strong da, the sup¬
porting ’a and the double tsheg}^

(iii) Further development

The epigraphic style seems to be closest to the earliest Tibetan script that was the
basis for all of the styles represented in the imperial period. Other styles, as we
will see below, can be shown to be derived from the basic shapes of the epigraphic
style, with variations caused by the exigencies of writing with pen and ink.

2.2 The square Style

2.2.1 Sources

This style is seen exclusively in the documents from the library cave at Dun-
huang. As mentioned above, these manuscripts date from the early 9* century
to the end of the 10*. It seems that the documents in the square style may date
from the earlier part of this period, during or shortly after the Tibetan occupation
of Dunhuang. Perhaps the best example of the square style are the manuscripts

17 These changes are clearly seen in the pillar edicts from the reign of Khri lde srong btsan
(c.800-815) and Khri gtsug lde brtsan (815-C.838). In the eastern pillar at the Sha {zhwa) temple
(dated to 804-5) there is no supporting ’a and the double tsheg is restricted to the end of a line
of text. In the western pillar (812), the da drag is also absent. Two other imperial pillars from the
same period, at Karchung (skar cung) and at the tomb of Khri lde srong brtsan (dating to slightly
after his death in 815), also lack these archaic features. The Lhasa Treaty Pillar of 822 also lacks
these features with the exception of the occasional appearance of the da drag. Note however that
the Kongpo rock inscription, which also dates to the reign of Khri lde srong brtsan employs most
of the archaic orthography, suggesting that the royal reforms were initially restricted to inscrip¬
tions produced by the emperor and his court.

Tibetan Palaeography

307

^i')

of the Old Tibetan Annals}^ Other manuscripts in this style include (i) historical
or semi-historical texts (ii) legal texts regarding penalties for theft, hunting and
other crimes (iii) dice divination texts, which may be related to the legal texts, as
dice divination seems to have been used to settle legal disputes,^® (iv) texts on
royal funerary practices.^”

These diverse texts perhaps show one common theme: they all seem to
emanate from the interests of the central Tibetan administration: imperial record¬
keeping, legal edicts from the imperial court and rituals for imperial funerals.
One striking physical feature uniting these manuscripts is that almost all of them
are copied onto the blank verso side of Chinese scrolls, indicating that they were
not brought to Dunhuang from Central Tibet. Thus the square style seems to
have been used in local copies taken from official documents, the originals of

18 These are lOL Tib J 750 and Pelliot tibetain 1288 (version 1) and Or.8210/S.187 (version 2).
Another Annals fragment recently identified by Kazushi Iwao in the Institute of Oriental Studies,
St Petersburg (Dx.l2851) is written in the same square style (see Iwao 2011).

19 See Dotson 2007.

20 Note that other similar documents like the Old Tibetan Chronicle (Pelliot tibetain 1287) and
the annals of the A zha principality (lOL Tib J1368) are not written in this square style.

308

Sam van Schaik

which may have come from Central Tibet. In the case of the Annals, this has been
explained by the fact that the dating system therein was used for official corre¬
spondence and legal contracts.^^ Since the Annals and other documents in this
style are concerned with the interests of the Central Tibetan imperial authorities,
there is a thematic link between these manuscripts and the pillar edicts, just as
there is a stylistic continuity between the epigraphic style and the square style.

2.2.2 General description

In general we can say that the square style is based on the epigraphic style, and
that the variations from the epigraphic style can be explained by the exigencies of
writing with pen and ink on paper, rather than inscribing with a chisel in stone.
The changes that occur in the transition from inscription to pen-and-ink writing in
other cultures have been noted by many palaeographers. Perhaps the most thor¬
ough attempts to define such principles is found in the work of Peter van Sommers,
whose graphetic principles are based on empirical studies as well as the analysis of
historical scripts, and address the issues of “how and where the hand approaches
the writing surface, the manner in which the hand and arm work as a stroke is
made, how writers and drawers anchor one stroke to another, and so on.”^^ Fol¬
lowing other palaeographers, we can refer to these principles as principles of ease.

The square style copies the short, largely straight, strokes of the epigraphic
style, with an even width of line throughout. We begin to the see the effect of
pen-and-ink writing in the small ticks and extended length in the vowel signs,
and in the collapse of the head of the ga from a four-cornered to a three-cornered
shape. We also begin to see the three-cornered ha alongside the four-cornered

21 Uray 1975; Takeuchi 1995, 24-25; Dotson 2009,11-12.

22 It is possible that the original documents were, in some cases, wooden tallies. There are sev¬
eral references in the Annals to records being made on red tallies (khram dmar po): lOL Tib J 750
11.55, 61,116, 136,157, 248. See Uebach 2008. A gap of one year in the manuscript of the Annals
(lOL Tib J 750 again) might be explained by the absence of the tally for this year.

23 See van Sommers 1991, 4. Eight principles are illustrated by van Sommers. To summarize, the
principles (as applied to right-handed writers) are preferences for;

(i) drawing lines in the directions of two, five and seven o’clock

(ii) anchoring lines to a fixed point

(iii) keeping close control by minizing the stroke area

(iv) starting at the top left

(v) drawing circles anticlockwise

(vi) progressing from one stroke to an adjacent one

(vii) completing similar strokes together
(viii) keeping paper contact

Tibetan Palaeography

309

version. There is a tendency for straight descenders to incline slightly to the right
(five o’clock - one of the easiest directions to articulate for right-handed scribes),
though this tendency is not nearly so pronounced as in the other written styles.

2.2.3 Further development

While the square style seems to have been rather limited in its use in the docu¬
ments available to us, it - or the epigraphic style on which it is based - seems
to have served as a model for the later ‘headed’ {dbu can) writing used in wood¬
block printing (primarily from the 15*** century onwards). This is quite reasonable,
as the woodblocks are carved, and so represent a return to a kind of inscribed
writing. There is in fact a Tibetan tradition that the script was revised at the end
of the 10*** century based on the style of the pillar inscriptions.^'*

2.3 The sutra Style

2.3.1 Sources

During the first half of the 9*** century masses of copies of Buddhist scriptures
{sutra) were produced on the order of the Tibetan emperors. Among the Dunhuang
manuscript collection we have several thousand scrolls containing the Homage to
Aparimitdyus Sutra {Aparimitdyumdma-sutra) and the scrolls and loose-leaf pothi
manuscripts of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra {Prajhdpdramitd-sutrd) in its various
forms. We also have copies of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra that are thought to have
been brought to Dunhuang from Central Tibet. Documents relating to the copying
of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutra indicate that this was carried out during the reigns
of Khri Ide gtsug brtsan (815-C.838) through to the Tibetan king reigning at the time
the Tibetan rulers were defeated in Dunhuang in 848.^^ Thus these manuscripts
probably date from the 820s to the 840s. A few other sutra-style manuscripts from
the imperial period were found in the desert sites of Miran and Endere.^®

24 See Ribur Ngawang Gyatso 1984.

25 The key document here is Pelliot tibetain 999, which has been the subject of numerous stud¬
ies. Translations can be found in Scherrer-Schaub 1991 and Yamaguchi 1996. Kazushi Iwao has
completed a thorough study of the process by which these manuscripts were ordered, copied and
paid for, which will be published in the near future.

26 For example, the Saddharmapundarlka-sutra manuscript from Endere studied in Karashima
2006 and Or.15000/303, a folio of the Usnlsasitdpatrandma-dharanl from Miran, catalogued and
pictured as no. 404 in Takeuchi 1997-8.

310

Sam van Schaik

\0>) I

Fig. 3: Aparimitayurnama-sutra: lOLTib J 310.1210. Reproduced by kind permission of ® The
British Library.

2.3.2 General description

The sutra style is somewhat heterogeneous. Marcelle Lalou, in a series of arti¬
cles published in the 1950s and 60s pointed to two kinds of material; that which
had been produced locally in Dunhuang, and that which had been brought from
further afield, perhaps from Central Tibet. Though there are clear stylistic dif¬
ferences between the two groups identified by Lalou, and future studies will no
doubt develop useful subdivisions, I prefer here to make some useful generaliza¬
tions in order to define the broad outlines of the writing styles across these siitm
manuscripts.^^

The principles of ease that we saw acting to some extent on the square style
are fully in evidence in the sutra style. The script is recognizable as a formal style
(as against more cursive styles that we will come to shortly) but can be written
more quickly than the square style. In general, this is effected through the reduc¬
tion of strokes and pen-lifts. In most examples of this style we also see those
secondary characteristics that are the side-effects of quick writing, including the
increasing length of final strokes (mainly descenders and vowel signs). Another

27 See Lalou 1954,1957 and 1964.

Tibetan Palaeography

311

consistent feature of the style is the collapse of four-cornered shapes like ba and
the head of ga into three-cornered, triangular shape.^®

We also see a tendency for lines to move away from the vertical, in the direc¬
tions of easier articulation at 5 o’clock and 7 o’clock, and there are sometimes
small ticks on the end of strokes, vyhere the pen is moved toward the next letter
before it has been fully lifted; these two features sometimes combine to produce a
slight ‘wave’ shape in descenders and shad. The scribes’ prefererence for keeping
the pen in contact with the paper sometimes creates loops, for instance at the
bottom of pa, ra and sa. Some corners may be rounded off, for instance at the top
right of the ga. There is some variation in heavy and light strokes, but this appears
to be caused by variable pressure on a flexible-nib pen, rather than careful use
of a calligraphic nib. Though most of these sutra manuscripts are plain, some
Perfection of Wisdom manuscripts by Tibetan scribes are ornamented with zig-zag
lines and occasional lotus flowers.^®

Despite the variation in the individual hands of the hundreds of scribes
who wrote these sutras, and the typological difference between those manu¬
scripts produced in Dunhuang and those produced closer to Central Tibet, the
general characteristics outlined here seem to justify our identification of a style
specific to these manuscripts. This style meets the specific need for the produc¬
tion large quantities of written material. It was taught to scribes (most of whom,
in Dunhuang, were Chinese), to be written at some speed, while retaining leg¬
ibility. Though the manuscripts were written to fulfill the demands of imperial
patronage, as an exercise in religious merit, legibility and accuracy were consid¬
ered important. Manuscripts were edited, and where too many errors appeared,
rejected. Since manuscripts produced in Dunhuang could be exported to temples
in Central Tibet, this level of legibility had to be applied as an imperial, rather
than a local, standard.^”

28 This is an example of van Sommers’ second principle, by which lines are anchored to a fixed
point (here the top of the triangle).

29 For example, in Pelliot tibetain 1307 (f.2v) one of the Perfection of Wisdom manuscripts origi¬
nating from Central Tibet in the imperial period, according to Lalou (see Lalou 1954,1957,1964),
we see circles, zig-zag lines and a lotus flower motif ornamenting the text at the end of a “vol¬
ume” (bam po).

30 Pasang Wangdu has seen Perfection of Wisdom Sutra manuscripts in several Central Tibetan
monasteries which not only appear identical to the Dunhuang copies, but were signed by the
same scribes and editors as found in the Dunhuang manuscripts (personal communication. May
2009). This suggests that Dunhuang may have been one of the major Tibetan imperial scripto¬
ria for siitra production, and at least on one occasion supplied manuscripts to Central Tibetan
monasteries.

312

Sam van Schaik

2.3.3 Further development

The most important aspect of the sutra style in terms of the later development
of Tibetan writing is the long descenders. This movement away from the square
shape of earlier writing influenced later Tibetan ‘headed’ forms, which even in
carved woodblock prints preserve these longer descenders. The main difference
from the style found in later siitra manuscripts is the general absence of shading,
the calligraphic alternation between light and heavy strokes that later became the
norm in this genre of manuscript. This shading can be seen in some of the Tabo
manuscripts, though in others it remains relatively undeveloped.^^

2.4 The official styles

2.4.1 Sources

There are two types of official writing style which we may class as ‘headed’ and
‘headless’. The latter is almost certainly the ancestor of all later Tibetan head¬
less {dbu med) styles. Both styles are seen in the manuscripts from Dunhuang and
the military bases of Miran and Mazar Tagh (in some cases both are found in the
same manuscript). Almost all of these manuscripts can be clearly shown to date
from the Tibetan imperial period, and a few of them were almost certainly written
in Central Tibet.The headless official style can also be compared with certain
rock inscriptions from Ladakh, which probably date to the late 8* and early 9*
centuries.

There is great stylistic consistency across these manuscripts, despite their
being from different locations and in the handwritings of different scribes.
There is also a remarkable consistency of subject-matter; these manuscripts are
mainly official registers of land and people, contracts for sales and loans, and
letters between local officials. Many of these manuscripts contain seals, either
the square official seals, the small round personal seals or the so-called “finger

31 Cristina Scherrer-Schaub (1999) includes the feature of “distinct well proportioned elongated
script, in thick and thin strokes” in the third phase of her periodisation, which begins around
the IS® century.

32 The two Central Tibetan manuscripts so far identified are Pelliot tibetain 1085 (from Than
dkar) and lOL Tib J1459 (from ’On cang do).

Tibetan Palaeography

313

seals”.Since the official styles do not appear in other manuscripts, they appear
to have been taught to a specific class of official scribes.^

2.4.2 General description
(a) headed

The official styles are notable for a change in the ductus of several letters - that is,
the number and order of strokes is changed for the sake of swifter execution. The
headed version of the official style is similar to the sutra style, though there is no
overt lengthening of downstrokes and vowel strokes (which we often see in the
sutra style) and the general impression is of a compact and efficient handwriting.
As in the sutra style, the speed of writing sometimes causes ticks at the end of
lines, and a tendency to incline in the direction of writing, to the right.

Fig- 4: Rules of management of scribes In Dunhuang, Imperial period: lOLTlb J 1359(A). Repro¬
duced by kind permission of © The British Library.

(b) headless

The headless version of the official style is a fully cursive script, eliminating all
strokes except those that are absolutely necessary for recognition of the letters -
including the heads that are found in all other styles from the imperial period.
We also see the rounding-out of corners, another fearture of fully cursive styles in

33 On the Tibetan seals see Takeuchi 1995, 107-115. Those among these manuscripts without
such seals should probably be considered to be copies or drafts.

34 The evidence for this statement is discussed in van Schaik 2012.

314

Sam van Schaik

Other writing systems. Thus the style is characterised by a rounded appearance.
The ‘wave’ shape is also apparent in longer strokes like shad.

j,.r,gw) j^t^'<v«5p^T5i‘ny*ei
<- j»h n ■ j I ( f

Fig- 5: Official register of scribes in DunhuangrIOLTibJ 1359(B). Reproduced by kind permission
of © The British Library.

(iii) Further development

The headed version of the official style is not clearly linked to later developments
in the script, but may be taken as an early analogue of the cursive headed style
of modern Bhutan. On the other hand, the headless version of the official style
represents the first clearly dated appearance of a fully-fledged headless script in
Tibet, and is probably the precursor of later headless, or ume (dbu med) styles, as
I have argued elsewhere.

2.5 The monastic style

2.5.1 Sources

This style is seen a relatively limited number among the hundreds of Tibetan
Buddhist manuscripts from the Dunhuang cave. These manuscripts are from the
circle of the Dunhuang-based translator Go Chddrup, who was active during the
last decades of the Tibetan occupation of Dunhuang, during which time he made
several translations from Chinese into Tibetan, some of which were well-knovm

35 See van Schaik 2012.

Tibetan Palaeography

315

*3r><^A,n 4

^-s;^ «^‘a <^ S^S'

^ • 'p^' '>x‘ • *■

enough to be included in the Tibetan canon centuries later.The Dunhuang
collections include several of these translations, as vyell as treatises vyritten by
Chodrup in Tibetan and Chinese. Many of these manuscripts are written in a
similar handwriting, and Daishun Ueyama has argued that some are in the hand
of Chodrup himself.^^ Whether this is the case or not, we can identify a consis¬
tent style across these manuscripts, closely analogous to the style of the official
manuscripts, yet different enough in form and content that it seems justified to
refer to it as a separate style, which I call ‘monastic’ because of its association
with Chodrup and his circle.

36 The ethnicity of Go Chodrup (’Go Chos grub), also known by a Chinese name, Facheng ii®,
is disputed, with some scholars seeing him as a Tibetan, others as Chinese. Ueyama 1990 has
pointed out that while his surname could be a Tibetan name, the spelling (’go) suggests that it is
a transliteration of the Chinese surname Wu

37 Ueyama 1995,93-94. The manuscripts that Ueyama identifies as possibly being in Chos grub’s
own handwriting are: ITJ686 (p.93, pl.l2), 687 (p.93, pl.l3), 217 (p.93, pl.l3), 218 (p.93, pl.l3), and
PT2205 (=P.ch.2035) (p.93-4, pl.22). Ueyama identifies his Chinese hand in the colophons of:
P.ch.2886 (p.94, pl.21), Or.8210/S.3927, (p.94, pl.30), and Or.8210/S.5309, (p.94, pl.31).

316

Sam van Schaik

2.5.2 General description

The monastic style is, like the headless official style, essentially cursive. Even
more than the latter, manuscripts often show signs of having been written at great
speed. The letters look more ‘loose’ in that strokes are often left uncompleted,
leaving small gaps in the letters; for example, the head of the ga may be left quite
open. The letters are small and compact, and unlike most other cursive forms
seen in the manuscripts, they tend to extend further horizontally than vertically.
Legibility seems to have been of only minor importance for the writer(s) of these
manuscripts, and we might speculate that they were mainly intended to be read
only by a small group of monastic ‘insiders’.

2.5.3 Further development

The development of this style might perhaps be traced in the interlinear annota¬
tions seen in many of the 10* century Dunhuang manuscripts, and in the later
Tibetan tradition. Such interlinear annotations are usually written a cursive yet
compact hand akin to this style.

3 Styles from the post-imperial period

Tracing the development of the Tibetan script after the fall of the empire is a for¬
midable task - even when we are restricted to the limited sample represented
by the Dunhuang manuscripts. As we have seen, most of the manuscripts and
inscriptions dating from the imperial period were probably created by a specific
class of scribes trained in a particular style. By contrast, the manuscripts dating
from the post-imperial period - from the late 9* century through to the 10* -
testify to the emergence of a much greater diversity of writing styles.

A recent traditional account states that “later, there was no universally
accepted script because the master scribes [each] adopted their individual style of
writing.’’^® This situation is said to have continued until a standardisation attrib¬
uted to the prince of Gyantse, Rah brtan Kun bzang ’phags pa (1389-1442).^® The

38 Ribur Ngawang Gyatso 1984, 29.

39 This prince is better known as the sponsor of the Them spangs ma edition of the bka’ ’gyur.
See Harrison 1996. Rab brtan Kun bzang ’phags pa’s work formed the basis for the standardiza¬
tion of Sangs rgyas rgya mtsho (Ribur Ngawang Gyatso 1984, 30).

Tibetan Palaeography

317

post-imperial Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts are certainly in accord with this
description of a time when individual expression dominated the field of writing.
The main difficulty in discussing the development of writing styles after the fall of
the Tibetan empire is trying to establish whether a group of similar manuscripts
represents a specific taught style, or just the pecularities of a particular scribe’s
handvnriting. We will see below that it is sometimes possible to identify a group
of manuscripts as being in the hand of one particular scribe. First of all however,
let us look at a few general categories of post-imperial manuscripts and see what
this tells us about the development of Tibetan writing after the fall of the empire.

3.1 Epistolatory styles

3.1.1 Sources

It used to be thought that all of the Tibetan manuscripts from Dunhuang dated to
the period of Tibetan occupation in the area, which ended in 848. In recent years,
largely through the work of Geza Uray and Tsuguhito Takeuchi, quite a number of
the Tibetan manuscripts from the cave have been dated to after the fall of Tibetan
rule, right through to the years before the closing of the cave at the beginning of
the 11* century. Among the first manuscripts to be proved to date from this later
period were letters.

3.1.2 General description

These post-imperial letters, while not exactly sharing a coherent style, are gen¬
erally written in a headless style that is more calligraphic than the official and

318

Sam van Schaik

monastic styles. Thus the movement towards ease of articulation apparently
reached its fullest expression in the official and monastic headless styles of the
imperial period, and what follows is a trend towards introducing calligraphic ele¬
ments into this headless style. Such movements between cursive and calligraphic
styles have been observed in the development of European scripts as well. The
palaeographer Albert Derolez describes this very process in the evolution of the
‘documentary script’ in Europe, and concludes: “Seen in this way, the history of
script might be described as an alternation of increasing cursivity, on the one
hand, and consolidation and calligraphy, on the other.

The new calligraphic elements in epistolatory writing include: (i) the length¬
ening of descenders - including shad and tsheg - and vowel signs - such as the
zhabs kyu - well beyond what is needed for letter recognition; (ii) a return to
sharper angles in some letters, such as da and m; (iii) alternation between heavy
and light lines (known as “shading”), suggesting the use of a flat-nibbed pen.'*^
The letter ga is usually in an angular open-topped form that is rarely seen in the
imperial period.

3.1.3 Further development

The lengthening of descenders and vowel signs in this later epistolatory style may
be an early stage in a development toward the letter-writing style of later, and
contemporary Tibet known as khyug yig (“running script”). The best example of
this is a letters contained in the manuscript lOL Tib J 754, which was probably
written in Liangzhou (modern Wuwei) by a Tibetan called Smar khams Rin chen
rdo rje in the 960s. Though this is by no means equivalent to the fully-formed
khyug yig, his handwriting displays a fluidity and the very long flourishes for
vowel signs that characterize the khyug style.'*^

40 Derolez 2003, 5. Elsewhere Derolez attempts a detailed description of “the various ways of
introducing greater formality in an informal cursive script” (Derolez 2003, 128-130). These in¬
clude (i) a reduction in the number of ligatures, (ii) a move back to a more complicated ductus
(i.e. more strokes), (iii) a move toward shading (the calligraphic alternation of wide and narrow
strokes) where a broad-nibbed pen is used, and (iv) an increasing angularity.

41 The shading is more evident in some manuscripts that others; Pelliot tibetain 1129 is a good
example.

42 On the dating and social context of this manuscript, see van Schaik and Galambos 2010. For
models of various kinds of khyug script, and the similar tshugs thung, see Bkra Ihun dgon 2003.

Tibetan Palaeography

319

/ ‘k

' J l|

3.2 Buddhist manuscript styles

3.2.1 Sources

Subsequent to his dating of a number of secular documents to the post-imperial
period, Tsuguhito Takeuchi showed that many Buddhist manuscripts can also be
dated to this later period. In a recent catalogue of tantric manuscripts from the
Dunhuang collections, Jacob Dalton and myself have suggested that the majority
of these manuscripts date from the post-imperial period, and a significant pro¬
portion from the latter half of the 10**’ century. This large group of post-imperial
Buddhist manuscripts contains a vast array of writing styles.'*^

Until recently, there was no way to determine whether these styles existed
elsewhere in the Tibetan cultural realm, or were specific to the areas in which the
Dunhuang manuscripts were written, all apparently within the northern Amdo/
Hexi corridor area. However, recent discovery of four Bonpo manuscripts inside
the ancient Gathang {dga’ thang) stupa in central Tibet has provided striking ana¬
logues to the post-imperial Dunhuang manuscripts. Each of the four manuscripts
is written in a style that may be compared to similar styles in the Dunhuang
manuscripts. Most significantly are the very close analogues with the ‘headless’
styles, as we will see below.'*''

43 On dating issues, see Takeuchi 2012, and Dalton, Davis and van Schaik 2007.

44 See Pa tshab pa sangs Dbang ’dus 2007. The author notes the similarity of the styles of these
manuscripts to the writing in the Dunhuang manuscripts.

320

Sam van Schaik

3.2.2 General description
(a) Headed styles

The headed script continued to be used in many different genres of Buddhist and
non-Buddhist text, and in a variety of forms almost defying any general descrip¬
tion. For Buddhist scriptures scribes often followed the methods of the imperial-
period sutra style very closely, so that these manuscripts are among the most
difficult to date on stylistic grounds.''^ Those manuscripts in which the style is
notably different from the sutra style share one significant characteristic that is

Fig- 9: Clockwise from top left: a collection of C
samsara” (iOL Tib J 335), a selection of prayers
(iOLTib) 728). Reproduced by kind permission

45 For example, the scroll containing a version of the popular tantric text Questions and Answers
of Vajrasattva (IOL Tib J 470) is written in this sutra style, yet the scribe’s signature, and the
headless writing style of the interlinear annotations show that it post-dates the Tibetan imperial
period. On this see, van Schaik 2009.

Tibetan Palaeography

321

perhaps the defining element of the post-imperial headed styles. This is the wave
shape that we saw appearing more or less accidentally in the sutra style. In these
later manuscripts this shape becomes embedded in the letter forms themselves,
as a calligraphic element of writing. Though the wave shape is sometimes not
very pronounced, it is consistently seen in the descenders of letters like na and
ga and in the shad. In some hands this effect is accentuated by lengthening the
descenders. As in the post-imperial epistolatory writing, we see evidence of the
use of a wider variety of pens, including broad-nibbed pens that allow a calli¬
graphic variation of the weight of strokes, and split-nibbed pens.'**’

(b) Headless styles

It is in the headless styles used to write Buddhist texts that we see the real devel¬
opment of Tibetan calligraphy after the fall of the Tibetan empire. As with post-

V CNc--, - ■ ’

1 4>'ny<xy(U'om(]

Fig. 10: Clockwise from top left: a commentary on the Upayapasatantra (lOLTib J 321), a
sadhana of Vajrasattva (lOLTib J 552), a Mahayoga sddhana (lOLTib J A37) and a Vinayavastu
(lOLTib) 1). Reproduced by kind permission of © The British Library.

46 In some later manuscripts (for example lOL Tib 1454) we see the mark of a split-nibbed pen,
that is, a flat nib which has been cut so as to hold ink better, like the nibs of most fountain pens.
The split nib becomes apparent when insuffient ink is used, and the single pen stroke divides
into two narrow parallel strokes. Thus far I have not identified manuscript evidence for split-
nibbed pens in the imperial period.

322

Sam van Schaik

imperial epistolatory writing, there is a distinct movement away from the prin¬
ciples of ease seen in the imperial period headless styles. The more calligraphic
nature of the post-imperial headless style is evident in the sharp angles of letters
like ga, ra and la, which produce a more attractive letter form, but require the
scribe to cease the motion of his or her pen in order to form the angle. We also find
that some letters, such as ka, now require an increased number of strokes. As in
the headed Buddhist styles, the ‘wave’ element is embedded in many letter forms,
and some scribes use shading quite consistently.

Despite the variation in these hands, there is a clear script model underly¬
ing most of the letter forms. Recently, the discovery of manuscripts from Central
Tibet dating to the same period as these Dunhuang manuscripts has yielded
examples of a similar style of writing. This analogous style, seen in two of the
Bonpo manuscripts found in the Gathang stupa and thought to date to the 10*
century, strongly suggests that this headless style was not restricted to the Dun¬
huang or even the northeastern Tibetan area, but was taught and used widely in
the Tibetan cultural area by the 10* century.'*^ Even before this discovery Samten
Karmay had compared other Dunhuang manuscripts in this style to the so-called
Druma {’bru ma) style seen in modern Bonpo ritual manuscripts from Amdo and
Kham."®

Some of the variants, shown above, are:

- A very good example of the 10*-century Buddhist headless style is the manu¬
script of the Updyapdsd commentary written by the scribe Kam cu pa Bu’o
ko (lOL Tib J 321), apparently a Chinese from Ganzhou (see image above). A
number of other manuscripts, mainly containing tantric texts, are found in
the same style of writing.

- The Vajrasattva sadhana lOL Tib J 552 is written in a less formal version of
the above used for texts of lower status than scripture and commentary (for
example, sddhanas and ritual manuals). Letter forms are very similar, but
less care is taken to ensure the correct proportions and spacing.

- Another style seen in sddhanas has notably long descenders, and often atten¬
uated upper parts in some letters, such as the na. lOL Tib J 437, and several
other manuscripts with this writing style, are associated with Khotanese
scribes. A similar preference for long descenders is also seen in some later
Kharakhoto manuscripts (eg. lOL Tib M 52).

47 See Pa tshab pa 2007. We must of course consider the possibility that these manuscripts came
from northeastern Tibet.

48 Karmay 1988, 42, 59. The manuscripts in question are lOL Tib J 594 and 647.

Tibetan Palaeography

323

A more compact version of the style seen in some vinaya manuscripts, such
as lOL Tib J1, and in interlinear annotations. A similar style is seen in the
interlinear annotation in some of the Tabo manuscripts.''®

3.2.3 Further development

It is illuminating to compare the Dunhuang Buddhist manuscripts of the 10*
century to the Buddhist manuscripts from the Tangut city of Kharakhoto, proba¬
bly dating to the 12* or 13* centuries. Manuscripts like lOL Tib M 50 are testament
to the enduring popularity of the elegant ‘headless’ style seen in lOL Tib J 321 and
similar Dunhuang manuscripts. The later manuscripts are more accomplished in
the subtlety and consistency of shading, and show how the headless script con¬
tinued to develop over the following centuries.®”

110^ J I |

Fig. 11: Buddhist manuscript from Kharakhoto, 12th-13th century: lOLTib M 50. Reproduced by
kind permission of © The British Library.

49 For example, RN421.

50 A recent fibre analysis of some of the manuscripts from Kharakhoto by Agnieszka Helman-
Wazny has shown them to be composed of fibres from the Thymelaeaceae family. This paper type
is rare in the Tibetan manuscripts produced in Dunhuang, a notable exception being a letter sent
from Central Tibet to Dunhuang in the imperial period (lOL Tib J1459). Therefore it is quite likely
some of the manuscripts found in Kharakhoto were brought from Central Tibet, and the writing
style therein may be taken as representative of Central Tibetan developments.

Sam van Schaik

324 -

t'>*l'V5 >^'n »ai

^d \Jf ♦ ooub'-y.'

Some manuscripts allow us to trace a line of development that leads towards one
of the major calligraphic styles of central Tibet, the so-called “book form” {dpe
tshugs). The book form is distinguished by a heavy shading on the vertical strokes,
contrasting with a light shading on the horizontal strokes. A very few manuscripts
from Dunhuang show the emergence of this style (eg. lOL Tib J 86 and 358). We
see a more accomplished form in the Kharakhoto manuscripts like lOL Tib M 54
and 55. These may in turn be connected with later “book form” manuscripts from
Central Tibet, such as the one below.

rvfc:^y

Fig.l3: Historical text in bookform script, pre-20'*' century: Or.6751. Reproduced by kind per¬
mission of ©The British Library.

Tibetan Palaeography

325

4 Key letter analysis

The traditional method of palaeography is to analyse and compare the forms of
key letters, and we will follow that method here, using the letter ka to show the
variety of styles and the specific features of the dbu med style. I vdll begin with
the pillar inscriptions because the development of the letter forms is best under¬
stood when these are taken as the original model.

In the pillar inscriptions, the letter ka is composed of four lines: (i) a horizon¬
tal ‘head’ {mgo), and then from left to right, three vertical lines descending from
the head, (ii) a stroke angled or turning to the left known in later Tibetan calligra¬
phy as the ‘tooth’ {mche ha), (iii) a straight line known as the ‘central arm’ {dbus
lag) and a slightly longer straight line forming the right side of the letter, known
as the ‘leg’ {rkang ba).

4.1 Epigraphic

In the earliest example of the letter ka, from the Zhol pillar, the three vertical lines
are almost the same length. The ‘leg’ is only very slightly longer than the other
two strokes, and is exactly the same length as the ‘head’. This gives the letter
a very square appearance, an appearance that is characteristic of all the letter
forms on this pillar. By the time of the Lhasa Treaty Pillar, some half a century
later, the leg of ka is much longer than the other vertical strokes. This may be an
effect of non-epigraphic vnriting on an epigraphic inscription, both the length and
the angle of the ‘leg’ being features of a stroke written with pen and ink.^^

4.2 Square

Here the ‘tooth’ and the ‘central arm’ now meet when they reach the head. This
feature, which is found in almost all manuscript styles of the headed script, can
probably be accounted for by the graphetic principle that a smaller number of

51 Pictured here: Zhol pillar (c.767) and Lhasa Treaty Pillar (821/2).

326

Sam van Schaik

fixed points in a letter allows for easier pen control. In this case we now have a
single point where these two strokes connect with the head, meaning that the
scribe does not need to judge the distance between the starting-point of the two
strokes.^^

4.3 Sutra style

Here we can see that the ‘leg’ has become longer, and both the ‘tooth’ and ‘central
arm’ now point to 7 o’clock (one of the three easiest directions for writing accord¬
ing to van Sommers’ graphetic principles). Small ticks appear at the end of some
strokes as the hand moves on to the next stroke before the pen lifts away. More
fundamentally, it seems that the ductus of the letter may have been altered here
so that the ‘central arm’ and the ‘leg’ are completed in a single stroke, with two
more strokes for the ‘head’ and ‘tooth’, reducing the number of strokes from four
to three.

4.4 Official style - headed

As in the above style, the heads of the letters are maintained, but the ductus has
been changed to facilitate writing quickly.^'*

4.5 Official style - headless

■n

This form of the letter shows further changes in the ductus, reducing the number
of strokes to two. It is clear that, as above, the ‘central arm’ and the ‘leg’ are com¬
pleted in a single stroke, with the ‘tooth’ completed along with a now vestigal
‘head’. Since there is no true ‘head’ - no separate vertical stroke - we can identify

52 Pictured here: Old Tibetan Annals (lOL Tib J 750), early to mid 9* c.

53 Pictured here: Aparamiturndma sutra (lOL Tib J 310.1210), early to mid 9'*' c.

54 Pictured here: official despatch from the Bde hlon (Pelliot tibetain 1089), early to mid 9® c.

Tibetan Palaeography

327

this as an dbu med style. Other accidental features of fast writing are also observ¬
able, such as the tick on the end of the ‘leg’ seen in this example.

4.6 Monastic style

Here there is even less attempt to retain the original proportions of the letter,
which is reduced to the bare minimum of strokes needed for recognition. The two
strokes that now form the ductus of ka can be clearly distinguished here.^®

4.7 Post-imperial epistolatory style

Here we see the same two-stroke ka, but a return to a more carefully-proportioned
form, with some shading visible in the stroke of the ‘tooth’. Characteristic of the
post-imperial ka, the two short strokes (the ‘tooth’ and ‘central arm’) both incline
back to the right.

4.8 Post-imperial Buddhist manuscripts

In this example, the calligraphic features of the 10*-century headless style are
clearly visible, with shading on all strokes, and the formal use of ticks on the end
of all strokes. Here the ductus has changed so that we now have a three-stroke ka
again.^®

Among these styles, we can see at least four different kinds of ductus in a
process by which the letter becomes increasingly cursive. Chronologically, this

55 Pictured here: official despatch from the Bde hlon (lOL Tib J1126), mid P'** c.

56 Pictured here: Yogacara commentary (lOL Tib J 301), mid 9® c.? [note this is the conjunct kya],

57 Pictured here: Letter of passage, c.970 (lOL Tib J 754a).

58 Pictured here: Commentary on the Updyapdsa sutra, 10'** c. (lOL Tib J 321).

328

Sam van Schaik

seems to correspond to a gradual simplification of the ductus with a reduction of
the number of strokes from four to two, until the appearance of the calligraphic
styles of the 10* century, when the number of strokes increases to three.

Fig. 14: Variant ductus for the letter ka seen in the Dunhuang manuscripts, in the square, sutra,
official (headless) and post-imperial Buddhist styles.

5 Problems and solutions

5.1 Bad writers and poor handwriting

It is of course a subjective judgement, but among the manuscripts from Dunhuang
and other Central Asian sites there is a significant proportion that appear to be
written by a person with only a limited grasp of the art of writing. I believe that
these manuscripts are probably the result of people learning the Tibetan alpha¬
bet without full or proper instruction, and that a large number of them is found
in these Central Asian collections specifically because these were primarily non-
Tibetan areas in which many people would have learned the Tibetan alphabet as
a second (or third) written language.

Fig. 15: Tibetan wooden slip from the Mazar Tagh fort: iOLTib N 1465. Reproduced by kind
permission of ©The British Library.

Tibetan Palaeography

329

Once again, we can quite easily split these poorly-written manuscripts between
those written during the Tibetan empire, and those written after the empire. The
first group are from the imperial forts of Miran andMazar Tagh. These manuscripts
come from the military culture at these forts, of which Takeuchi has written:

Tibetan armies, including previously subjugated Sumpa and Zhangzhung elements,
were sent and stationed there, and local peoples such as Chinese, Khotanese, ’A-zha (i.e.
Tuyuhun), and Mthong-khyab, were recruited in situ and incorporated in the Tibetan mili¬
tary system.^’

As we might expect from an army composed of such a diversity of soldiers, the
written documents from these sites are in a variety of styles, and range from
accomplished versions of the official styles seen in the Dunhuang manuscripts
and described above, to versions of the square style (including older orthography
and punctuation like the double tsheg) to stilted and crabbed handwritings that
seem to be based on these styles but are clearly not from the hand of an accom¬
plished writer.

The poorly written manuscripts from Dunhuang often look very similar to
those from the military bases, but they are quite different in being Buddhist texts
and being dated - where dating is possible - to the latter part of the 10*^ century.
The texts are overwhelmingly tantric, including prayers, sddhanas, and funerary
rituals. Only one of these manuscripts is signed by a scribe, a certain ’Phyag Dar
ste. The first part of this name is difficult to identify but the second part of it is
probably Chinese.

Some time ago I argued that this poorly executed handwriting may have
been the result of people writing quickly, perhaps taking notes in a teaching
situation.*’” While this may well be true of some of these manuscripts, we have
other manuscripts that appear to have been written swiftly but show a much more
accomplished hand (like the ‘monastic style’ manuscripts discussed above). And
since some of the poorly-written manuscripts are copies of well-known texts, it is
unlikely that they were written at unusual haste.

59 Takeuchi 2004, 50.

60 See van Schaik 2007.

330

Sam van Schaik

Fig. 16: Tibetan tantric text on the verso of Chinese almanac for the year 956: Or.8210/S.95.
Reproduced by kind permission of © The British Library.

It may be better to see these poorly executed manuscripts as originating from
writers who have acquired the Tibetan alphabet in an incomplete manner, proba¬
bly as autodidacts learning through copying the letters on other manuscripts. The
faults in these writing styles are those of writers who have copied the form of the
letter without having been taught the correct way of constructing it; that is, the
order and direction of the strokes. Tibetan, like most writing systems, has strict
rules about the order and direction of the strokes that make up its letters. This
means that even when writing at speed, a scribe’s handwriting will be legible to a
practised reader. On the other hand, when a scribe adopts a nonstandard stroke
order and direction, his or her letters may take on quite idiosyncratic forms, and
will rarely achieve the formal elegance of a taught hand.

In recent years there have been several cross-cultural studies of the acqui¬
sition of a second handwriting. One such study has shown the results of such
self-taught writing in Japanese schoolchildren who were asked to write English
letters without formal guidance. The results are inelegant, idiosyncratic, and at
times illegible.®^ Several other studies show that when schoolchildren learn a
second alphabet, the execution and general shape of the letters are affected by
the formal characteristics of their first alphabet. For example, Chinese children
tend to sequence their letters with the traditional Chinese method of drawing
horizontal strokes before vertical strokes.®^ In our manuscripts the same horizon¬
tal sequencing can sometimes be seen in certain letters - the letter ja being a
particularly clear example.

61 Sassoon 1995,16, 21.

62 Sassoon 1995, 45-54.

Tibetan Palaeography

331

•I I ^ ^ ^

Fig. 17: The standard stroke order of the headed form of the letter ]a, and the stroke order for
the same letter in Or.8210/S.95.

We may tentatively conclude that many of these manuscripts in poor handvyriting
vyhere vyritten by local Chinese vyho had only an imperfect grasp of the Tibetan
alphabet, having learned it vyithout a proper instructor, and therefore vyithout
acquiring the correct stroke order. Why vyere these people - vyho presumably could
more easily vyrite in Chinese, interested in these Tibetan texts? The ansvyer may
be in the specific nature of the texts in this kind of poor handvyriting, vyhich, as I
mentioned earlier, are mainly sddhanas, funerary texts and prayers for recitation.
The profusion of Tibetan tantric manuscripts from the lO**' century in the Dun-
huang collections suggests (i) that tantric meditation and ritual vyas very popular
at this time, and (ii) the vast majority of such texts vyere only available in the
Tibetan language. This vyould have been reason enough for local Chinese - and
perhaps other non-Tibetans - to make the effort to acquire some facility in vyritten
Tibetan, even vyithout access to proper instruction in the script.®^

5.2 Identifying the handwriting styles of individual scribes

There is another knotty problem that facing the palaeographer attempting to
develop a typology based on a limited group of manuscripts. This is the ques¬
tion of vyhether a particular style of vyriting represents a taught style, or just the
handvyriting of one prolific scribe. In the language of handvyriting analysis, this
is the difference betvyeen allographic and idiographic variation. Allographic vari¬
ants are alternative vyays of vyriting the same letter (or “grapheme” in the techni¬
cal vocabulary); an example in our script is the printed /a/ and the italic /a/.
Idiographic variants are specific to individual vyriters and generally are not con¬
sciously affected by that vyriter - rather they are the features of a vyriter’s hand
that he or she is not consciously in control of, but that give it a particular form.

63 Of course, as mentioned above, many Chinese scribes wrote Tibetan in very practised and
sometimes elegant styles. These scribes would have been taught to write Tibetan by others al¬
ready fluent in the style. It is also worth noting that one of the central Tibetan manuscripts from
Gathang (the Sha ni shul ston) is written in a similarly awkward hand. Here we have less reason to
think that the scribe was non-Tibetan, but we may still speculate that this hand was self-taught,
rather than acquired through formal training.

332

Sam van Schaik

Now, in cultures that are far removed from us in time and geography, it can be
difficult to distinguish these two. In a recent article I and my co-authors explored
how we might apply the forensic method for handwriting identification to the
Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts. This method involves isolating examples of each
individual grapheme from document A, and comparing them with equivalent
forms from document B. In this way an analytic chart is created, and used as a
tool to identify significant - idiographic - similarities between individual letters
in each document. Yet the forensic handwriting expert faces much the same
problem as the palaeographer - how to communicate to others a conclusion that
is based on his or her own extensive experience of examining writing styles? As
the forensic analyst Tom Davis has written:

The ability to create such a chart is very much based on experience. The examiner must
know what is likely to constitute significant variation for the purposes of determining
authorship.^''

So, while the forensic method is a helpful tool for palaeography, it does not replace
the techniques of the palaeographer, nor does it offer the prospect of removing the
element of individual expertise and judgement from palaeography.

The question of whether a group of manuscripts in a similar style can be iden¬
tified as a taught style representing the handwritings of several scribes on the one
hand, or as the handwriting of a single scribe on the other, is particularly prob¬
lematic when we are dealing with the post-imperial Tibetan manuscripts from
Dunhuang. The manuscripts of the imperial period clearly fall into certain groups
in which, as we have seen, specific handwriting styles are appropriate to specific
kinds of document. Many more of these documents are signed by scribes, so we
can also confirm that numerous scribes are writing in the same style. In addition,
we have inscriptions and manuscripts from Central Tibet which show that these
general styles were not local to Dunhuang.

By contrast, owing to the profusion of calligraphic styles in the post-impe¬
rial period, the situation is much less clear. The best approach to arguing that a
group of manuscripts represent the handwriting of a single scribe is to accumu¬
late physical and thematic evidence, that is (i) a large number of “benchmarks” -
idiographic characteristics linking all of the manuscripts, (ii) other similarities in
the group including codicological ones - type of book, mise en page, and so on,
(iii) similarities in the content of the manuscript itself - not broad similarities

64 Dalton, Davis and van Schaik 2007, 4.

Tibetan Palaeography

333

a/ ^ <<r;^«v

I L—i-

Fig. 18: Two manuscripts probably written by the same scribe: lOLTib J A24 and 425. Repro¬
duced by kind permission of © The British Library.

like “Buddhist text” but specific ones like “rituals of water offering.”®^ Such con¬
junctions of palaeographical, codicological and thematic content are in fact quite
common in the post-imperial Tibetan Buddhist manuscripts, and it is likely that
many of them do derive from the work of a relatively few scribes.

It is even more speculative, perhaps to identify a taught style among these
manuscripts. As the traditional account states, it sometimes seems that every
scribe has adopted a style of his or her own. There is some help to be found in
the manuscripts from Kharakhoto, Tabo and other collections that date from the
centuries immediately following the 10'*^ century. In some cases, like those men¬
tioned in section III above, we can see that the Dunhuang scribes are writing
in a taught style that continued to evolve over the following centuries. However,
the identification of taught styles seems better suited to the imperial period, and
perhaps the identification of scribal handwritings may be the more promising
technique for the Dunhuang manuscripts from the post-imperial period.

6 Conclusions

What can a palaeography of the early Tibetan inscriptions and manuscripts
offer us? One thing it can do is illuminate for us the early development of vnritten
Tibetan. Though this may perhaps be of interest mainly to other palaeographers, it
does touch on some topics that have been debated by both traditional and modern
scholars of Tibet, including the origin of the Tibetan script, and the development

65 This technique of accumulating different levels of evidence is used in the identification of a
single scribe in Dalton, Davis and van Schaik 2007.

334

Sam van Schaik

of the headless style.*’*’ Palaeography may also hold out the prospect of dating
manuscripts by handwriting, when no other evidence is available. In this brief
study I have tried to sketch out how we might begin to date the early Tibetan
manuscripts according to palaeography, based on the following:

(i) A preliminary typology of written styles in the imperial period manuscripts.

(ii) A recognition that a paradigm shift in written Tibetan followed the fall of the
Tibetan empire in the mid-P* century.

(iii) A familiarity with the calligraphic elaborations in written Tibetan that devel¬
oped in the post-imperial period.

Finally, it is to be hoped that a full description (more than is possible in this pre¬
liminary study) of the different writing styles that appear in these manuscripts
will encourage students of Tibetan history and Tibetan Buddhism to make more
use of these primary sources. With digital images and text editions increasingly
available through the work of the International Dunhuang Project and the Old
Tibetan Documents Online website, access to the manuscripts is easier than ever.
Yet many students and scholars still assume that these earliest surviving Tibetan
manuscripts, are too difficult to read, or dismiss them as merely of local interest.
Just as Western palaeography has opened up the world of European manuscripts
for many researchers, a palaeography of Tibetan may help make the Dunhuang
manuscripts more approachable.

References

Akademie der Wissenschaften, Gottingen (ed.) (1951), FestschriftzurFeier des200jahrigen
Bestehens der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gottingen (II Philologische-historische
Klasse), Berlin: Springer.

Bacot, Jacques / Thomas, Frederick William / Toussaint, Gustave-Charles (19A0-A6),

Documents de Touen-houang relatifs a I’histoire du Tibet, Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul
Geuthner.

Bischoff, Bernard (1990), Latin Palaeography, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bkras Ihun dgon (2003), Yig rigs gsum Idan gyigzungs sngags, Lanzhou: Kan su’i mi rigs gyi
dpe skrun khang.

Boltz, William (199A), The Origin and Early Development of the Chinese Writing System, New
Haven: American Oriental Society.

Buhler, G. (1904), Indian Palaeography, Bombay: The Education Society’s Press.

Cabezon, J.l. / Jackson, R.R. (eds.) (1996), Tibetan Literature: Studies in Genre, Ithaca: Snow
Lion.

66 Please see the treatments of both subjects in van Schaik 2011 and 2012.

Tibetan Palaeography

335

Dalton, Jacob / Davis, Tom / van Schaik, Sam (2007), “Beyond Anonymity: Paleographic
Analyses of the Dunhuang Manuscripts”, \n-. journal of the International Association for
Tibetan Studies 3,1-23.

Dani, Ahmad Hasan (1963), Indian Palaeography, Oxford : Clarendon.

Derolez, Albert (2003), The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Denwood, Phillip (2007), “The Tibetans in the Western Himalayas and Karakoram, Seventh-
Eleventh Centuries: RockArt and Inscriptions”, in: Journal of Inner Asian Art and
Archaeology 2, 49-58.

Dotson, Brandon (2007), “Divination and Law in the Tibetan Empire: The Role of Dice in
the Legislation of Loans, Interest, Marital Law and Troop Conscription”, in: Kapstein,
Matthew / Dotson, Brandon 2007.

Dotson, Brandon (2009), The Old Tibetan Annals: An Annotated Translation of Tibet’s First
History, Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Drege, j-P. (ed.) (1996), De Dunhuang au Japan: etudes chinoises et bouddhiques offertes a
Michel Soymie, Geneva: Librairie DrozS.A.

Fleet, John Faithfull (1888), Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum Vol.lll: Inscriptions of the Early
Gupta Kings and Their Successors, Calcutta: The Superintendent of Government Printing,
India.

Francke, August Hermann (1911), “The Tibetan Alphabet”, in: Epigraphia Indica 11: 266-273.

Gaur, Albertine (1984), A History of Writing, London: The British Library.

Gilissen, Leon (1973), L’Expertise des ecritures medievales, Ghent: Editions Scientifiques.

Harrison, Paul (1996), “A Brief History of the Tibetan bKa’ ’gyur", in Cabezon / Jackson 1996,
70-94.

Hill, Nathan (ed.) (2012), Medieval Tibeto-Burman Languages IV, Leiden: Brill.

Imaeda, Yoshiro / Kapstein, Matthew / Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (eds.) (2011), Old Tibetan
Documents Monograph Series III, Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, ILCAA.

Iwao, Kazushi (2011), “A Newly Identified Fragment of the Tibetan Royal Annals in St.
Petersburg”, in Imaeda / Kapstein / Takeuchi (2011, 245-256).

Iwao, Kazushi / Hill, Nathan (eds.) (2008), Old Tibetan Inscriptions (Old Tibetan Documents
Online Monograph Series II), Tokyo: Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, ILCAA.

Kapstein, Matthew / Dotson, Brandon (eds.) (2007), Contributions to the Cultural History of
Early Tibet, Leiden: Brill.

Karashima, Seishi (2006), “An Old Tibetan Translation of the Lotus Sutra from Khotan:

The Romanized Text Collated with the Kanjur Version (2)”, \n: Annual Report of The
International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology 9, 89-181.

Karmay, Samten (1988), The Great Perfection: A Philosophical and Meditative Teaching of
Buddhism, Leiden: Brill.

Lalou, Marcelle (1954), “Les manuscrits tibetains des grandes Prajhdpdramitd trouves

a Touen-houang”, in: Silver jubilee volume oftheZinbun-kagaku-kenkyusho, Kyoto: Kyoto
University, 257-261.

Lalou, Marcelle (1957), “Les plus anciens rouleaux tibetains trouves a Touen-houang”,
in: Rocznik Orientalistyczny 21, 149-152.

Lalou, Marcelle (1964), “Manuscrits tibetains de la Satasdhasrikd-prajhdpdramitd caches a
Touen-houang”, in: JournalAsiatiquelSGh, h79-hB6.

Laufer, Berthold (1918), “The Origin of Tibetan Writing”, in: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society 38, 34-46.

336

Sam van Schaik

Li, Fang Kuei / South Coblin, W. (1987), A Study of the Old Tibetan Inscriptions, Taipei Institute
of History and Philology: Academica Sinica.

Mallon, Jean (1952), Paleographie Romaine, Madrid: Graficas reunidas.

Meisterernst, Desmond Durkin etal. (eds.), Turfan Revisited - The First Century of Research into
the Arts and Cultures of the Silk Road, Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Pa tshab Pa sangs Dbang ’dus [Pasang Wangdu] (2007), Gtam shul dga’thang ’bum pa che nas
gsarrnyed byung ba’i bon gyigna’ dpe bdams bsgrigs, Lhasa: Bod Ijongs dpe rnying dpe
skrun khang.

Ribur Ngawang Gyatso (1984), “A Short History of Tibetan Script”, in: Tibet Journal 9.2, 28-30.

Richardson, Hugh Edward (1985), A Corpus of Early Tibetan inscriptions, London: Royal Asiatic
Society.

Sander, Lore (1968), Palaographischeszu den Sanskrithandschriften der Berliner Turfan-
sammlung, Wiesbaden: Steiner.

Sassoon, Rosemary (1995), The Acquisition of a Second Writing System, Oxford: Intellect.

van Schaik, Sam (2008), “The Sweet Saint and the Four Yogas: A ‘Lost’ Mahayoga Treatise from
Dunhuang”, in: Journal of the International Association for Tibetan Studies 4,1-67.

van Schaik, Sam (2011), “A New Look at the Source of the Tibetan Script”, in: Imaeda /

Kapstein / Takeuchi 2011, 45-96.

van Schaik, Sam (2012), “The Origin of the Headless Script {dbu med) in Tibet,” in: Hill 2012,
411-446.

Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina (1991), “Reciprocite du don: une relecture de PT999”, in: Steinkellner
1991, 429-434.

Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina (1999), “Towards a methodology for the study of old Tibetan
manuscripts: Dunhuang and Tabo”, in: Scherrer-Schaub / Steinkellner 1999, 3-36.

Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina (ed.) (2012), Old Tibetan Studies, Proceedings of the Tenth Seminar of
the iATS, 2003, Leiden: Brill.

Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina / Steinkellner, E. (eds.) (1999), Tabo Studies ii: Manuscripts, Texts,
inscriptions and the Arts, Rome: Is.I.A.O.

Scherrer-Schaub, Cristina / Bonani, G. (2002), “Establishing a typology of the old Tibetan
manuscripts: a multidisciplinary approach”, in: Whitfield 2002,184-215.

Steinkellner, E. (ed.) (1991), Tibetan history and language: studies dedicated to Uray Geza on
his seventieth birthday, Vienna: Arbeitskreis fur tibetische und buddhistische Studien
Universitat Wien.

Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (1990), “A Group of Old Tibetan Letters Written Linder Kuei-I-Chiin:

A Preliminary Study for the Classification of Old Tibetan Letters”, m: Acta Orientalia
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 44,1-2,175-190.

Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (1995), Old Tibetan Contracts From Central Asia, Tokyo: Daizd Shuppan.

Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (2004), “Sociolinguistic Implications of the use of Tibetan in East

Turkestan from the end of Tibetan Domination through the Tangut Period (9'*’-12**' c.)”, in:
Meisterernst et al. 2004.

Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (2012), “Old Tibetan Buddhist Texts From the Post-Tibetan Imperial Period
(mid-9'*’ c. to late lO**" c.)”, in: Scherrer-Schaub 2012.

Takeuchi, Tsuguhito (forthcoming), “Old Tibetan Rock Inscriptions Near Alchi”, in: Uebach /
Panglung (forthcoming).

Thomas, Frederick William (1951), “TheTibetan Alphabet”, in: Akademie der Wissenschaften,
Gottingen 1951,146-165.

Uebach, H. / Panglung, J.L. (eds.) (forthcoming), Studia Tibetica Hi.

Tibetan Palaeography

337

Ueyama, Daishun (1990), Tonko bukkyo no kenkyO, Kyoto: Hbzbkan.

Uray, Geza (1975), “L’annalistique et la pratique bureaucratique au Tibet ancien”, in: Journal
Asiatique 263,157-170.

Whitfield, Susan (ed.) (2002), Dunhuang Manuscript Forgeries, London: The British Library.
Yamaguchi, Zuihd (1996), “The fiction of King Dar-ma’s persecution of Buddhism”, in: Drege
1996, 231-258.

Imre Galambos

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese
Manuscripts'

Generally speaking, written Chinese before the 20*^ century used no punctuation;
readers parsed the text based on context, relying on an array of grammatical and
modal particles. Another important aid was the often parallel structure of sen¬
tences, its organic symmetry and rhythm. Western style punctuation was intro¬
duced in 1920 and has been successfully employed ever since.^ Although for most
of its history Chinese writing was fully functional without punctuation, a number
of marks had also been used before the modern era. Their presence, however, was
sporadic and often limited to educational and commentarial literature.^

Naturally, transmitted texts are of little use for the study of punctuation marks
in earlier periods because such notation was generally not part of the text proper
and, consequently, remained excluded from transmission. Scribal notations
were closely tied to manuscript culture and therefore the best method to study
them today is to examine the manuscripts, whenever available. In this respect,
the Dunhuang manuscripts represent an ideal body of texts for the period of the
Sth-iQth centuries.'' They are especially relevant for the early medieval and medi¬
eval periods because they comprise, along with material excavated at other sites
in Western China (most notably Turfan and Khara-Khoto), the absolute majority
of extant manuscripts. Consequently, even though this corpus comes from the

1 I am grateful to Matthias Richter of the University of Colorado, Boulder for his suggestions and
remarks on an earlier draft of this paper.

2 The document titled “Proposal for the promulgation of new-style punctuation marks” was sub¬
mitted by the eminent Chinese writer Hu Shi iSB (1891-1962), Zhou Zuoren (1885-1967)

and several other scholars in November 1919, in response to which in February 1920 the Ministry
of Education issued the “Directive on the implementation of new style punctuation marks” (Li
Xingjian et al. 2001, 268). Hu Shi’s own book Zhongguo zhexueshi dagang (1919) was the first
book written in vernacular Chinese and published with modern punctuation.

3 For a general treatment of punctuation in Chinese writing in the West, see Harbsmeier (1998),
Fiihrer and Behr (2005), and Drege (1991). The first person to discuss punctuation marks in Chi¬
nese texts was the Russian missionary-sinologist Nikita Bichurin (1777-1853), more commonly
known in the West by his monastic name Father lakinf (Hyacinth), in his book on Chinese gram¬
mar (Bichurin 1838, 20-31), he described the marks used in contemporary printed texts.

4 Based on the colophons of dated texts, it is generally believed that the manuscripts had been
written between ca. 400-1000. The overall majority of the texts are handwritten, with a small
number of printed ones, and even fewer rubbings from epigraphic material. As a collection, they
represent the largest body of Chinese manuscripts ever found, and thus their significance for the
study of scribal habits and the history of Chinese writing in general is invaluable.

342

Imre Galambos

periphery of the Chinese sphere of influence and at times may exhibit local pecu¬
liarities, it is by far the largest and thus provides a representative image of scribal
habits.

What we consider punctuation is, of course, a matter of definition. While the
etymology of the English word refers to points (Lat. punctus) used for dividing
text, there are a number of other types of marks (e.g., question and exclamation
points, quotation marks, brackets) that are also included in this category. In this
paper I am using the term punctuation in a broad sense for all symbols used in
manuscripts, other than the text (i.e. characters) itself. To be sure, it would be a
difficult task to give an exhaustive count of all such marks, as new manuscript
finds often provide evidence of hitherto unknown types.^ But for the most part
newly discovered marks tend to be individual symbols the use of which had been
local and exceptional. The tens of thousands of manuscripts from Dunhuang
supply enough material to document the major types of marks in common use
in medieval times. Although in comparison with modern punctuation they often
seem unsystematic, they nevertheless exhibit a surprisingly high degree of con¬
sistency in terms of their functionality and appearance over the course of the six
centuries represented by the Dunhuang material. This testifies to an unbroken
scribal tradition that outlived several dynasties. From the point of view of their
functionality, we can group the most common marks into the following catego¬
ries: 1) correction marks; 2) repetition marks; 3) phonetic marks; 4) abbreviation
marks; 5) segmentation marks; 6) reverence marks; and 7) other marks.

1 Correction marks

Although correction and repetition marks (see section 2 below) are not the types
that come first to mind when discussing punctuation, they appear at the head of
the list here because of their overall prominence in manuscript material. Correc¬
tion marks are a set of signs used for rectifying mistakes in the manuscripts, by
either the writer, or a subsequent editor or proof-reader. Traces of proof-reading

5 While the original contents of the Dunhuang library cave represent a finite and closed corpus,
surprisingly to this day we still do not have a complete list of all manuscripts. Following the dis¬
persion of the collection, many of the items were lost or simply disappeared from the eyes of the
world. With the recent boom in Dunhuang studies, new manuscripts are being “rediscovered”
each year, and images of these are becoming accessible in digital or printed reproductions, in
addition to this, other sites in Western China, most notably Turfan, Khara-Khoto, Loulan and
Khotan, are continuously yielding new material. Especially the Turfan area has been rich in
manuscript finds and the size of the Turfan corpus is rapidly growing.

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts

343

abound in the Dunhuang corpus; there are quite a few manuscripts with colo¬
phons that record the names and titles of people who checked the completed
work for errors. Scrolls of Buddhist scriptures commissioned by the Tang court
were executed with skilled and even calligraphy, with at least three persons
checking the result.

It is worth noting that mistakes, and their corrections, are very common in
extant manuscripts, and virtually no longer scroll is devoid of them. Even court-
commissioned sutms include corrections, revealing that such errors, as long as
they were corrected, were tolerated in the final product.® A Song dynasty account
of how corrections were done as part of the proof-reading or editing (Jiaochou 13c
tl) process is described by Chen Kui (1128-1203):

, sij»o , ip

mm .

When errors occur in characters, paint them over with orpiment (cihuang) and then write
new text atop of that. If there are interpolated characters, mark them with a circle of orpi¬
ment; if there are missing ones, insert them by the side of the text. Or if there is not enough
space for comments by the side of the text, then use a vermillion circle and write your note
on the empty margins at the top or bottom of that line. When two characters are reversed,
write the character Z, between them.^

Chen Kui’s description is fully compatible with the ways of marking corrections
in the Dunhuang manuscripts. One of the most common mistakes was to reverse
the sequence of two adjacent characters, which was corrected by placing a small
checkmark in the form of v or on the right side of the line between the two
characters (figure 1). The second of these is no doubt identical to the character S
mentioned by Chen Kui, and also seen in Figure 1/B.

When a character appears in the text by mistake, it is corrected with a dele¬
tion mark comprising one or more dots placed by the right side of the character.
The most common form had three dots but in some cases there could be one or
four dots. For example, in Figure 2/C the character # is marked with four dots,
showing that it needs to be eliminated. Figure 2/A shows a case where the copier
accidentally repeated two characters but immediately noticed his error and
emended it by placing a small dot next to each of the two erroneous characters.

6 In such high quality elite manuscripts, however, we can observe a tendency to make the cor¬
rections as visually inconspicuous as possible, with subtle marks or insertions that would have
been virtually unnoticeable to anyone without carefully reading through the entire manuscript.

7 Chen Kui, Nan Songguan ge lu iiiSIIH® (1998), “Jiaochou shi” tSfltS;. For a good review of
the editing process and methods in transmitted literature, see Zhang 2001. An alternative trans¬
lation is also found in Cherniack 1994, 94.

344

Imre Galambos

The dots are occasionally written in another colour, as in Figure 2/D which shows
that the copier made the mistake of writing the word pusa (Bodhisattva)
instead of puti SH {bodhi), and corrected this by marking the character ® with
a red dot.

A: Or.8210/S.2067

B: Or.8210/S.15A7

C:Or.8210/S.236

Fig- 1: Examples of notation for reversed characters.®

A: 0r.8210/
S.321

*■

B: Or.8210/

C:0r.8210/

D:Or.8210/

E: Or.8210/

S.797/V

S.2A9(A)R.2

S.2067

S.1920

ir-.f

-Tit

’ft

3- • ^

Fig- 2: Deletion marks on the right side of mistaken characters. In examples A-D the mark
consisting of a different number of dots, whereas in E it is marked with a symbol resembling the
character h.

Another common deletion mark was a symbol in the shape of the character h
placed, just like the dots, on the right side of the redundant character.® In the
manuscript in Figure 2/E, the copier accidentally used the character f# instead of
the homophonous f±, but having caught his mistake, marked the flawed charac¬
ter with the h mark and continued the text with the correct one.

The custom of using a dot as a deletion mark is also referred to in Guo Pu’s
(276-324) commentary to the Erya ® Jt. The main text says, ‘“To eliminate’

8 All manuscript images appearing in this paper come from the Stein collection at the British
Library or the Pelliot collection at the Bibliotheque nationale de France. The pressmark for the
Stein manuscripts begin with “Or.8210/S.,” and for the Pelliot ones with “P.” (abbreviated from
“Pelliot chinois”). All of these manuscripts are, or shortly will be, accessible online through the
website of the International Dunhuang Project (IDP) at <http://idp.bl.uk>.

9 For a study devoted to the h deletion mark, see Zhang Xiaoyan 2003.

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts

345

means ‘to mark with a dot’” Mli ii li, which is an ambiguous statement explained
by the commentator as ‘‘to eliminate a character with the brush” We

know from a later source^^ that another edition of the text had the character )i^
(‘‘to stain; to soak”) in place of Ifi (“to mark with a dot”)/^ which seems to be
referring to the technique of painting over the wrong character with orpiment.^^
This reading would also be compatible with the original version of the phrase
(i.e. using the character li), although without the alternate version one could
certainly take the verb dian Ifi to refer to the correction marks beside the mistaken
character/'*

2 Repetition marks

Medieval manuscripts habitually employ repetition marks whenever two or more
identical characters follow each other. This is an optional notation and in many
cases the characters are written out in full.^ At other times, however, the second
instance of the character is omitted and a mark is used in its place. Principally
speaking, there are two kinds of repetitions: single-character and multi-character
ones. In the first type only one character is repeated, whereas in the latter two or
more. While this may seem a trivial distinction, in actual usage the notation for
these was somewhat different. The single character repetition was simply marked
by a small 1 mark put in place of the second character. This mark was sometimes
written as t or 5., but the form t was still by far the most common in Dunhuang.
The mark was placed within the main text, in place of the omitted second charac¬
ter occupying, in contrast with most other marks, a full character space.

10 My translation of the Erya definition is, of course, based on Guo Pu’s commentary to it, even
though originally it very well may have been written with a different context in mind.

11 This later source is the Song commentator Xing Bing JfPS (932-1010) who added further an¬
notations to Guo Pu’s commentary (see Eryazhushu 1131^®:).

12 The characters and ii are perfectly viable variants, as they not only had similar pronuncia¬
tion in the time of Guo Pu (as indicated by the shared phonetic component) but also stood for
words that were probably cognates.

13 This technique is equivalent to our modern-day method of using “wite-out” or “liquid paper.”

14 It is worth noting that in the Dunhuang manuscripts the technique of painting over a charac¬
ter was significantly less common than marking the mistake with small dots on the side. Other
methods for deletion were to smudge the error out with ink, to scrape it off the surface of the
paper, or to glue a piece of paper over it.

15 In fact, in most cases where repetition occurs, the characters are written out in their full form
and the repetition mark is used less commonly.

346

Imre Galambos

Figure 3/A shows two instances of single-character repetitions; first the char¬
acter ^ and then in the next line the character W,; in each case the second char¬
acter is omitted and substituted by a » mark. In multi-character repetition, the
repetition mark is placed either underneath the character or at its right bottom
corner. An example to the former usage is Figure 3/B where the characters d'WIS
(“indescribable; unspeakable”) are repeated in the phrase “indescribable and
indescribable myriads of sentient beings” d'. What makes this case
different from the single repetition in Figure 3/A is that the three characters are to
be read together and only then repeated as a string. Based on the notation alone,
it would theoretically be possible to repeat them one by one as but

this would obviously produce a meaningless string of characters. The reader must
rely on the context for disambiguation. In the case of multi-character repetition,
the marks could also be written on the side of the text as a single or double slanted
stroke, as in Figure 3/C where the word niepan (“Nirvana”) is repeated.

A: Or.8210/S.15A7

B:0r.8210/S.2067

C: Or.8210/S.116

f’l'^ ^

■»

t % 'i

[.A >

1 ;*

"S-

i ii

- ^ :

-St

f 1

* >>

i ^ ^

. •» *

Fig. 3: Examples of single and double-character repetition marks.

3 Phonetic marks

Medieval manuscripts also include a number of phonetic marks wdth the purpose
to clarify the correct pronunciation of a character. In a study on such notation
used in Dunhuang manuscripts, Ishizuka Harumichi describes how the marks
indicating the four tones of the Chinese language developed from the earlier poyin
marks used for distinguishing a character’s default and derivative readings.^®
The habit of marking derivative readings by a red dot is already mentioned in Lu
Deming’s ^^.0^ (556-627) celebrated dictionary, the Jingdian shiwen

16 Ishizuka 1993, 30-32.

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts

347

The character M (“not, do not”) is different from the character S (“mother”) used for
one’s parent. In books circulating among the general population these are often confused
and readers always mark the character mu 9 with a red dot to show that it should be pro¬
nounced as wu. This is wrong.

The expression zhudian Ifi (“to mark something with a red dot”) appears in the
above excerpt as a transitive verb, suggesting that at this time this was a technical
term. Lu Deming complains that in manuscripts of inferior quality the characters
^ and § could not be told apart and ordinary readers developed the habit of
using a red dot to distinguish between the uses of what they thought to be the
same character.^® Although the above comment was written with the aim of point¬
ing out a misunderstanding, it also provides evidence for existence of the practice
of marking a character’s pronunciation as a means of distinguishing its original
and derivative readings.

Although the Jingdian shiwen dates to the late 6* century, concrete examples
of such usage appear in the Dunhuang manuscripts only from the mid 7* century.
Ishizuka distinguishes several categories of conventions based on the location of
the red poyin marks with reference to the character itself.^® The most basic form
is when the red dot is placed over the middle of the character, indicating that it
is being used in a derivative sense. For example, in manuscript Or.8210/S.2577
the character appears standing for the words “music” and “pleasure” in two
adjacent lines:

At that time, eighty-four thousand heavenly women shall come and welcome him, perform¬
ing different kinds of music. He shall instantly don a crown of seven treasures and find
amusement and pleasure among the women of the palace.

The first instance of the character, appearing in the word jiyue (“music”) is
unmarked, whereas the other two occurrences in the words yule (“amuse¬
ment”) and kuaile (“pleasure”) are marked with a red dot. This shows that

17 Lu Deming 1985, “Wu bujing” ST'®.

18 Needless to say, in this place Lu Deming refers to Sui and Tang manuscripts and is not con¬
cerned with the complex relationship between these two characters in the pre-Qin period.

19 Ishizuka 1993, 32-49.

20 This example is also noted in Ishizuka 1993, 41. For a translation of the colophon of this
manuscript describing the way of principles of adding punctuation marks, see Section 5.1 below.

348

Imre Galambos

the default reading of the character was to stand for the word “music” and that
other usage had to be marked in order to distinguish it.

A variation of this technique in Dunhuang manuscripts is when the red mark
is applied to the right of the character. In the above two cases it only serves to
mark the whole character without specific phonetic information. In contrast with
this, the red mark could also appear at one of the four corners of the character,
just outside its square boundaries. In such cases not only the presence of the
dot was meaningful but also its location, because it was indicative of the tone
with which the particular character was supposed to be pronounced, and this in
turn also determined the word it meant to represent in that context. Within the
Dunhuang material, Ishizuka distinguishes four different systems, depending on
in which corner the ping ¥ (“level”) tone, the first of the four, is placed; upper
right, lower right, lower left, or upper left. Within each system the tones followed
one another in a clockwise direction, that is, if the 1®* tone was in the upper right
corner, then the 2"'^ was in the lower right, the in the lower left, and the in
the upper left one.

Ishizuka correctly attributes the development of these marks to advance¬
ments in philological studies, as scholars needed to distinguish and mark an
increasing amount of linguistic information in texts.^^ However, while the motiva¬
tion behind the use of the poyin system was to study the classics “so as to under¬
stand difficult characters and sentences correctly,”^^ one cannot but wonder why
some of these elucidations were necessary at all. After all, distinguishing the
two pronunciations of the character M. (e vs. wu) in the Lunyu would have
been fairly obvious for all literate people, since by the Tang dynasty the text had
been used as one of the basic books of elementary education. This suggests that
rather than simply facilitating the reading of the texts, such detailed commen-
tarial notation must have functioned as a way of emphasizing and transmitting a
certain tradition of interpretation.

4 Abbreviation marks

Abbreviation marks are used for indicating an omitted portion of a word or
phrase which is unequivocal in a particular context. They typically occur in non-
canonical Buddhist texts, including commentarial literature and the popular
genre of so-called “transformation texts” {bianwen ®5;). There are two types of

21 See Ishizuka 1981,107.

22 Ibid.

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts

349

abbreviations: one used for binoms, the other for longer strings ranging from a
phrase to complete sentences. The first type is only used for fairly common words
where only the first character is written, while the second is replaced by one or
two comma-like dots (Figure 4/A, 4/B). Common examples are the words gongde
“merit” ); rulai “Tathagata” ); gongyang “to make offerings”

); zhongsheng “sentient beings” ); fannao “affliction” ^

); qingjing “purity” ), etc.^^ Because the mark placed after the first

character at times closely resembles the repetition mark, once again, the context
is necessary for a correct reading. There are cases, however, when the mark is
simply a downward elongation of the first character (e.g.. Figure 4/C).

A: P.3808 B: P.3808 C: P.2133

litt

D: P.2305

Fig- 4: Abbreviation marks in manuscripts of popular Buddhist literature.

Beside individual words, abbreviation can also be used for phrases and sentences
which are deemed obvious enough so that the reader can decode them based on
the context. Generally speaking, these are strings of text that occur repeatedly
within the same manuscript. For example, manuscript P.2133 has several such
formulaic sentences which are abbreviated after the initial use. Figure 4/D shows
the phrase “yet has no contentment in his heart” appearing three

times in the text. The first time it appears in full but after that it is abbreviated by
writing the first two characters and then replacing the rest with a long vertical
stroke.

23 Pan Zhonggui 1981, 7-8.

350

Imre Galambos

5 Segmentation marks

This is the category of scribal notation which comes closest to our modern notion
of punctuation. These marks are used for dividing the text and aiding its under¬
standing, without adding or deleting characters. They are not part of the Chinese
script as such but have only been used for learning purposes or parsing difficult
or ambivalent texts (e.g., the Classics). Accordingly, these marks appear in manu¬
scripts less frequently than correction and repetition marks, both of which were
fairly common, forming an integral part of medieval manuscript culture.

In our modern age we are accustomed to relying on a highly standardised
system of punctuation marks and these specify the grammatical relationships
within a text with considerable regularity. But consistency in this respect is cer¬
tainly a modern invention even in Western languages. In contrast with this, medi¬
eval Chinese scribes divided the text into smaller segments, indicating groups
of characters that belonged together. Nothing in this practice distinguished the
end of a sentence in the modern sense of the word; the text seemed to consist of
a succession of shorter “chunks,” each of which was only a few characters long.
Similarly, while the modern understanding of punctuation acknowledges its
value for signifying the mood and tone of sentences (e.g., exclamation and ques¬
tion marks), in Chinese manuscripts this was almost never the case, and such
nuances were thought to have been sufficiently indicated in the text itself, not the
least with a series of modal particles.

When studying the Dunhuang manuscripts, it is probably a good practice
not to adhere too closely to our modern notion of punctuation, since the medi¬
eval understanding of grammatical constituents and syntactic relations was in
many ways different from ours.^'' Instead, it seems more reasonable to begin our
investigation with the contemporary functionality of the marks, and only then
try to draw parallels with modern usage. Based on their use in context, we can
distinguish the following types of marks:

24 For example, in Li Zhengyu’s (1998, 98) classification of punctuation marks in Dunhuang
manuscripts the first two categories are the period and the comma. He observes that the period
was often written with the same mark as the comma but fails to acknowledge that at the time
people might have made no distinction between the two. An improvement in this respect is the
work of Guan Xihua (2002) who categorized the marks in the Dunhuang corpus primarily on the
basis of their visual appearance and within each category described the function of a particular
mark. From the point of view of methodology, the best approach is that of Pan Zhonggui (1981)
whose classification is based on the functionality of marks within the manuscripts.

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts

351

5.1 Separation marks

These are dots in the form of a modern serial comma () or a period (o ), used
for separating smaller bits of texts, which normally do not exceed a few char¬
acters. There seems to be no distinction between the two marks, both of them
could be used in the same context, and often there were in-between forms.
In figure 5/A, for example, red comma-type marks are placed after every few
characters, much where we would punctuate the text today with commas and
periods. However, the same comma-like symbol is used consistently through¬
out the manuscript, showing the lack of distinction between a pause and a full
stop. Another example in Figure 5/B is a copy of the Maoshi Zheng jian ^
where the text is divided by the same kind of red dots. Interestingly, the punc¬
tuation also extends to the commentaries placed in two-column small script
between the main text.^^

A: P.AOlO

B:0r.8210/S.10

' ■*

4 ■ li-

jEt

4 A

% '

jx.

fit*

■A A

f .He.

A a

' 1 }

■h

Fig. 5: Separation marks. (The marks on both manuscript images have been retraced in black
because the originals red marks are too faint to be easily visible in a black-and-white print.)

25 A fascinating aspect of this manuscript is that phonetic readings of selected characters from
the main text appear on the verso, exactly where the annotated character is. The user has to
hold the paper to the light in order to be able to see the connection between the two sides. See
Ishizuka 1970, 5.

352

Imre Galambos

Both of the above cases are examples of secondary punctuation when the marks
were added not by the copier but someone else who used the text sometime later.
We are fortunate to have among the Dunhuang manuscripts a description of the
motivation behind such subsequent mark-up. In manuscript Or.8210/S.2577, a 7***-
century scroll containing fascicle 8 of the Lotus sutm, the punctuator explains his
reasons in the colophon the foiiowdng way:

# , ; SiJtTi^tT(MMS)o , m

m»sL glim#, , wiiK*o

I punctuated this sutra for beginner students who read it but are unfamiliar with the seg¬
mentation of the text. I neither paid attention to larger sections, nor considered their begin¬
ning and end. For the most part segments consist of four characters and I started punc¬
tuating them when the segments did not comprise four characters. But for four-character
segments I added no dots whatsoever. The alternate reading of the character S refers to
when it is pronounced as the alternate reading of the character It refers to when it is

pronounced as In this manner, I tentatively distinguished them. Let those who see

this later not blame me for using red marks and say that the punctuation is flawed.

The description explains that the punctuator added the marks for the sake of
beginners who did not know how to parse the text. But even these novices would
have been familiar with the general rule of four-character units in literary Chinese
and thus only places where this was not the case had to be marked. Similarly, red
poyin marks appear in the manuscript only for characters the reading of which in
that particular context deviates from their common one. This shows that contrary
to our modern custom of punctuating a text thoroughly, in medieval China punc¬
tuation was used, if used at all, primarily for solving ambiguities or difficulties.
As a result, the system of punctuation we can discern from the Dunhuang manu¬
scripts often appears inconsistent, since a punctuator did not strive for being con¬
sistent but concentrated instead on less obvious passages.

5.2 Section marks

These are marks used to denote the beginning of a new section in the text. A
section is of course a flexible concept, ranging from a few characters to several
lines. In our modern terminology it comes closest to the paragraph. Generally

26 I am grateful to Prof. William H. Baxter for elucidating the nuances of these fanqie pronuncia¬
tions to me.

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts

353

speaking, section marks differ from separation marks described above in that
the latter are used for indicating syntactic units (i.e. sentences or clauses),
whereas the former partition texts into larger, conceptually cohesive segments.
With respect to their physical appearance, section marks can have various
forms. In Figure 6/A, for example, the section mark is in the shape of red brack¬
ets placed at the top right corner of the new section; in the same manuscript,
red dots act as separation marks (see 5.1 above) to segment the text into smaller
syntactic units.

A: P.2418 B: P.2133

Fig- 6: Section marks in manuscripts.

C: P.2133

D: Or.8210/S.797

«-

In Figure 6/B, sections are indicated by large circles (O) placed between char¬
acters. Elsewhere in this manuscript, in some cases dots are used instead of
circles for the same function. Figure 6/C illustrates how in the same manuscript
the large circles are also used to separate the verses of poems, which are only
a few characters long and, according to our modern sense of grammar, would
often belong to the same sentence. In addition. Figure 6/C also shows the use
of brackets as section marks, although with a slightly different functionality.
In contrast with the large circles, the brackets mark comments which in our
modern practice would probably be consigned to a footnote. In contrast with
the short red brackets in Figure 6/A, the brackets in this manuscript are much
longer, with their vertical line extending downward along the first few charac¬
ters of the comment.

The manuscript in Figure 6/D uses hook marks to distinguish the beginning
of new sections. Even when the sections begin on a new line, which is usually the

354

Imre Galambos

case in this manuscript, the bookmark is placed at the top of the line to empha¬
size that there is a break between the previous line and this new one. In a few
instances, whenever space permits, a new section begins on a half-finished line
after the mark^^ - Figure 6/D shows two such sections beginning halfway through
the line.

With respect to the identity of the person adding the marks we can be fairly
certain that the red marks used in Figure 6/A were added by a later punctuator,
i.e. these represent secondary notation. In the other three cases (B, C, and D),
however, it was the copier who added the marks while he was copying the manu¬
script.

Beside the marks described here, the most common way of indicating a new
section was by starting a new line, leaving the rest of the previous one empty.
In an effort to make the structure of the text visually more apparent, indenta¬
tion was also commonly used. For example, colophons appended at the end of
manuscripts were typically indented and separated from the main text by several
lines worth of empty space. Yet another way of controlling the layout was the
use of condensed spacing for the characters, most commonly used for stanzas
embedded in Buddhist sutms, as well as chapter titles - these served as obvious
separators between sections.

6 Reverence mark

This mark is not an actual symbol but an empty space^® placed before the name
or title of a person who is venerated by the community producing the manuscript.
Usually the space equals to a single character but occasionally it could be longer.
In some cases, not only the names of revered personages were written in this
manner but also their attributes. Obviously, the significance of this kind of nota¬
tion was to draw the reader’s attention to the particular spot on the page, to make
the name or title stand out from the rest of the text. The traditional Chinese term

27 This is only true for smaller sections which can fit onto the remaining space of the line. Sec¬
tions that begin halfway through a line invariably end on that same line. If the new section is
longer, it begins on a new line.

28 In taking space as a form of punctuation I am following the modern Western understanding
according to which any symbol used to separate or group text can be considered punctuation.
See, for example, “Space as a form of punctuation” (Lloyd and Warfel 1957, 368-370).

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts

355

for this device is jingkong (“reverence space”) and it is usually traced back to
a description by Shen Gua (AIS (1031-1095).^®

In the manuscript in Figure 7/A, a space is left blank before the word huangdi
(“emperor”). As an example for the use of a space before a personal name,
Figure 7/B shows a segment from the text called “The story of Master Yuan from
Mount Lu” fithiai^iS, where the name of Master Yuan is preceded by an
empty space.

A:0r.8210/S.3071

d: ur.e5ziu/:5.zu/:>

iAj

fX , A

Fig- 7: Blank space left before titles and names as a sign of respect.

7 Other marks

The above types of marks represent the most frequently seen ones in the Dun-
huang corpus. In categorising the common marks, I intentionally concentrated
on manuscripts with running text, that is, texts which consist of longer sequences
of sentences. The ones used in this paper were canonical or commentarial works
of the main traditions of Chinese religion or philosophy. However, there are also
manuscripts, although fewer in number, in which content is stored in a highly
structured manner. These are the dictionaries, prescription manuals, biblio¬
graphic catalogues, registers, etc. which organize a large number of short records
into a database-type format. In order to preserve the transparency of their struc¬
ture, such manuscripts utilise a fairly consistent system of punctuation and
layout, much more so than the ones with a linear flow of text. Therefore, one
could collect a much larger repertoire of marks which would not, however, be
necessarily representative for the majority of Dunhuang manuscripts.^”

29 Mengxi bitan 2003, 271. Shen Gua, however, describes the term jingkong as the space

left at the end of official communication submitted to superiors, awaiting their comments and
signifying the unreserved acceptance of those. Therefore, although this usage of space is also a
sign of respect, it nevertheless serves a different function from the examples here.

30 In fact, in the classifications of Guan Xihua (2002) and Li Zhengyu (1988) the majority of the
punctuation marks come from such database-like texts, especially rhyme dictionaries, and in

356

Imre Galambos

The systematic use of punctuation in such texts is documented in the Shitong
iil, an 8* century work on historiography by Liu Zhiji fij^^ (661-721):

«-t«»

In old times, Tao Yinju [i.e. Tao Hongjing 456-536] in his Bencao (Materia Medico)

used red and black dots to mark the names of herbs with cold and hot tastes [i.e. effects].
Ruan Xiaoxu (479-536) in his Qilu (The Seven Records Catalogue) wrote out the titles of
books from the Wende Palace collection with a red brush. By this means differences were
distinguishable and categories recognizable.^^

The Bencao was essentially an inventory of herbs, and the Qilu a catalogue of
books, thus both were compilations of a series of individual entries, similar to
modern databases. The coherent use of a sophisticated system of color dots was
an effective method to signify the hierarchies and relationships in the texts. An
interest in the accessibility of records is voiced in the “Foreword” of Lu Deming’s
(556-627) celebrated dictionary, the Jingdian shiwen where he explains that
he “wrote the text of the classics in black ink and the annotations to those with red
characters, in order to distinguish the two and so that they can be located easily.”^^

8 Summary

The Dunhuang manuscripts demonstrate the existence of a sophisticated and
mature system of punctuation in the scribal tradition of early medieval and medi¬
eval times. While Chinese writing in general functioned well without punctua¬
tion, a series of marks were used by the scribes and readers on a daily basis. Some
of the marks (i.e. correction, repetition, abbreviation and reverence marks) were
part of the scribal habits, while others (i.e. phonetic and segmentation marks)
were primarily used in commentarial and educational contexts. In addition, a
more elaborate and fairly consistent notational system was employed in inven¬
tory-type texts, such as dictionaries, prescription manuals, catalogues, registers.

some cases are rather atypical for the entire corpus. One of the marks they documented was, for
example, the so-called “substitution mark” occurring only in a limited number of dictionaries
as a symbol roughly equivalent to the “tilde” or “swung-dash” used in modern lexicography. In
contrast with their approach, the categories and examples recorded by Pan Zhonggui (1981) and
Ishizuka (1970, 1981, 1993) are more representative, as they originate from more typical manu¬
scripts with continuous text.

31 Liu Zhiji, Shitong 1997,127.

32 Lu Deming 1985, “Preface”

Punctuation Marks in Medieval Chinese Manuscripts

357

References

Bichurin, Nikita (1838), Kitaiskaia Grammatika (Hanwen qimeng St. Petersburg:

V Litographii Gemiliana.

Chen, Kui fSR (1998), Nan Song guan ge lu Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. Edited and

punctuated by Zhang Fuxiang ?Ia#.

Cherniack, Susan (199A), “Book culture and textual transmission in Sung China”, in: Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies 54:1, 5-125.

Drege, Jean-Pierre (1991), “La lecture et I’ecriture en Chine et la xylographie”, in: budes
chinoisesX-.l-l, 77-106.

Fiihrer, Bernhard (ed.) (2005), Aspekte des Lesens in China in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart,
Edition Cathay, Bd. 54. Bochum: Projekt Verlag.

Fiihrer, Bernhard / Behr, Wolfgang (2005), “Einfiihrende Notizen zum Lesen in China mit
besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Friihzeit”, in: Fiihrer 2005,1-44.

Guan, Xihua (2002), Zhongguo gudai biaodian fuhao fazhanshi rpHS
Chengdu: Bashu shushe.

Flarbsmeier, Christoph (1998), Science and Civilisation in China. Vol. 7, Part 1: Language and
Logic (edited by Kenneth Robinson), New York: Cambridge University Press.

Flu, Shi iJB (1919), Zhongguozhexueshi dagang Shanghai: Shanghai shangwu

yinshuguan.

Ishizuka, Flarumichi 5S8fii (1970), “Rdran, Tonkd no katenbon #W SStO)l[lttz|s;”, in: Bokubi
■11201, 2-38.

Ishizuka, Flarumichi (1981), “The texts of Lunyu, with commentaries by Cheng FIsuan,
discovered in Tunhuang and Turfan”, in: Journal Asiatique CCLXIX, 101-108.

Ishizuka, Flarumichi (1993), “The origins of thessu-sheng marks”, \n: Acta Asiatica 65, 30-50.

Li, Xingjian et al. (2001), Yuyan wenziguifan shiyongzhinan

Shanghai: Shanghai cishu chubanshe.

Li, Zhengyu (1988), “Dunhuangyishu zhongde biaodian fuhao
in: WenshizhishiS!:i.iaM 8, 98-101.

Liu, Zhiji iiJJHIi (1997), Shitong iil, Shenyang: Liaoning jiaoyu chubanshe (edited and
punctuated by Fluang Shoucheng

Lloyd, j. Donald / Warfel, Flarry R. (1957), American English in its Cultural Setting, New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.

Lu, Doming (1985), Jingdian shiwen Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe

(Facsimile edition).

Luo, Zhenyu / Wang, Guowei iglii (1993), Liushazhuijian Beijing: Zhonghua

shuju (Originally published in 1914, then corrected and reprinted in 1934).

Pan, Zhonggui MMW, (1981), “Dunhuang juanzi suxie wenzi yu suwenxue zhi yanjiu

in: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan guoji hanxue huiyi lunwenji (Wenxuezu)
(itWffi), Taipei: Academia Sinica, 1-12.

Shen, Gua ifcfi (2003), Mengxi bitan Lidai biji congkan Shanghai:

Shanghai shudian.

Zhang, Bowel ffi# (2001), “Pingdian silun ffSSFgim”, m-. Zhongguoxueshu rplISW 2,1-40.

Zhang, Xiaoyan (2003), “Shanzi fuhao bu yu Dunhuang wenxian de jiedu

SJCffliMftlll”, in: Dunhuang yanjiu SfiWSE 79:3, 71-73.

James Robson

The Archive Inside: Manuscripts Found
within Chinese Religious Statues

Printed books will never be the equivalent of handwritten codices, especially since printed
books are often deficient in spelling and appearance.

Trithemius, “In Praise of Copying”

It has taken scholars of Chinese religions a rather long time to come to terms with
the limitations of working solely with incunabula and later typeset editions of
texts and to realize the potential virtues of working with manuscript versions of
texts. In the present digital age, new avenues of scholarship have been opened
up, but the distance between contemporary scholars and pre-modern manu¬
scripts has grown even further apart. Attention to Chinese religious manuscripts
in the age of print (and digitisation) has suffered in part at least due to the high
profile history of the invention and development of printing technology in China
from about the century onward. Although the printing of individual texts and
canons accelerated rapidly from the 10**' century to the present, that trend did
not lead to a disappearance of manuscript culture. The rich history of manuscript
culture in China has been traced (thanks to a richly documented archaeological
record) from bamboo or wooden slips tied with cords, to the use of silk, silk waste,
old linen, rags, fish nets, hemp, and mulberry bark used to make a paste which
was dried and used like paper.* Despite the development of new technologies
and new media, the practice of producing handwritten versions of texts on paper
persisted alongside of the new technology of printing and has endured down to
the present day. Yet, as was the case with the history of handwritten texts after
the Gutenberg revolution in the West, there has been inadequate scholarly con¬
sideration of the status of writing in the period after the introduction of printing.^
We are encouraged to take manuscripts seriously, however, since, as Lucille Chia
has noted, there was “an enduring interaction of manuscript and print in China,”
with some printed books being hand copied and books with handwritten margi¬
nalia making their way into print. Roger Chartier has also cautioned that “having
invented moveable type, for the most part the East did not use it,” since it was
largely reserved for particular types of texts such as elite official documents and

1 Guignard 1997, 72; see also Drege 1991; and Tsien 1962.

2 See Eisenstein 1983,1.

360

James Robson

the Classics.^ Thus, it is not surprising to find out that “although Sung printers
were prolific, the majority of books in Sung imperial and private libraries were
still manuscripts,” and those manuscripts were usually held in higher regard
than the imprints, as Susan Cherniack has pointed out.''

Scholars of Chinese literature have for some time realized the importance of
manuscripts for helping to reveal some of the ways that what we read today in
the received print versions of texts is the product of a complex history of editing,
alteration and evolution. Many of the issues that have been raised in that field
are equally applicable to the study of religious texts. Xiaofei Tian has succinctly
noted the complexity of the situation: “Texts” she writes, “are altered, truncated,
and rewritten. Even authorship changes; names are appended to works that Took
like’ someone’s writing or removed from those that do not ‘fit in’ with an author’s
perceived style or personality. The ‘definitive editions’ passed on to us, medi¬
ated by the editing of Ming and Qing scholars, must be recognised for what they
truly are: the products of layers upon layers of emendations that more often than
not are ideological decisions. Copying texts by hand was, moreover, practiced
throughout imperial China, despite the spread of printing.”^ All of this new evi¬
dence has served to highlight the processed nature of printed sources, which have
gone under the hand of many editors who manipulated the text in sometimes
rather intrusive ways by standardising stories, presenting a unified vision of
history, and editing out the unseemly. Therefore, while there has been a gradual
evolution from handwritten texts to the use of woodblock printing and eventually
to a majority of texts being printed with moveable type, manuscripts neverthe¬
less remained in use and there are many collections of handwritten manuscripts
related to a number of disciplines - including literature, politics, religion, ritual,
theatre, and sociology - that await systematic scholarly study and analysis. We
also await future work on a variety of what might be referred to as pre-texts, which
would include any type of preliminary draft. In the face of much recent work on
the culture of manuscripts in China were are therefore invited to question Joseph
Needham’s claim that follovdng the invention and spread of printing, “practi¬
cally everything in Chinese is either printed or lost.”" The recent interest in the
study of manuscripts, that the essays in this volume demonstrate, has reached a
new level of sophistication, is not entirely new, but is the most recent iteration of

3 Chia 2002,11-12, 40-42 and Chartier 1996, 1.

4 Cherniack 1994,33. A similar situation appears to have existed in the West, since as Cerquiglini
has posited, scriptoria were held in higher regard than early printing houses (see Cerquiglini
1999, 3).

5 Tian 2005, 221.

6 Needham 1970, 24.

The Archive Inside: Manuscripts Found within Chinese Religious Statues

361

a distinct subfield within the study of Chinese history and religion. The field of
Sinology may finally be close to reaching the position where we can confidently
claim - along with Bernard Cerquiglini - that “the manuscript, which has long
been pushed to the margins of legitimate reflection and sometimes even obliter¬
ated - the abominable trace of some positivist concern - is now the latest object
of analysis,” but we still await some foundational studies that will help to draw
together some of the different strands of research that have been completed to
date.^ I will leave it to others to counter Needham’s claim based on empirical evi¬
dence from their particular domains of research, but for my part here, I will be
focusing on evidence for the persistence of the use of manuscripts in the context
of Chinese religious history and local religious culture.

Manuscripts have not been entirely ignored by scholars of Chinese religions,
but the focus of that work has tended to be uneven. One could make a persuasive
argument, however, that some of the most significant recent developments in the
fields of Chinese Buddhist and Daoist studies have been ignited by the unearthing
and study of surviving manuscript collections. The highest profile discovery of
our time was no doubt the bringing to light of a rich cache of manuscripts at Dun-
huang in far western China at the turn of the century. Although the finding
of the Diamond Sutra - dated to 868 and therefore the oldest dated printed book
in the world, though other printed materials already existed - among that cache
of materials has attracted inordinate attention, the printed materials found at
Dunhuang are far outnumbered by handwritten manuscripts. The Dunhuang dis¬
coveries, and subsequent discoveries of manuscripts from Turfan and other Silk
Route locales, caused great excitement and spawned an outpouring of studies
that infected just about every subfield in the study of Chinese religion. The impact
of those studies is still being felt in relation to Buddhist studies (particularly Chan
Buddhism and the study of Buddhist apocrypha), Daoist studies, astronomy, divi¬
nation and calendrics, as well as social, political, and legal history.® The large

7 Cerquiglini 1999, i.

8 The secondary literature on the study of Dunhuang Buddhist manuscripts is too numerous to

cite in full here, but see, for example, (in alphabetic order) Adamek 2007; Broughton 1999; Bus-
well 1990; Demieville 1952 and 1973; Drege 1999; Faure 1988 and 1997; Forte 1976; Fujieda 1966
and 1969; Gao Guofan aHS 1989 and 1994; Gernet 1956; Hu Shi 1968; Hubbard 2001; Ikeda
On it!lE3/S 1979; Kalinowski 2003; Kuo Li-ying 1994; Mair 1989; Makita Tairyo 1976; Maki-

ta Tairyo / Fukui Fumimasa 1984; McRae 1986; Mollier 2008; Nishiwaki 2007;

Soymie 1979, 1981, 1984; Tanaka Ryosho EftiMBp 1983, Teiser 1994; Yampolsky 1967, Yanagida
1967. The study of Daoist Dunhuang manuscripts has also attracted attention, see Bokenkamp
1997; Kanaoka Shoko Ikeda On >t!lH/m, and Fukui Fumimasa 1983; Mollier

1990; Ofuchi Ninji 1978; Rao Zongyi USE! 1956; Schipper 1985; Seidel 1969; Wu 1960;

Yoshioka Yoshitoyo 1959-1976.

362

James Robson

cache of handwritten manuscripts relative to printed texts at Dunhuang further
demonstrates how the use of manuscripts persisted through the 11* century -
when the caves were sealed - even as printing was becoming more widespread.®

While the field of Dunhuang studies has dominated (and continues to domi¬
nate) the scholarship on religious manuscripts in Europe, the US, China and
Japan for the past century, the continued discovery of other types of manuscripts
in China coupled with new manuscript discoveries in Japan during the late
1980’s, again re-energized the study of Chinese religious manuscripts. During a
series of visits to Nanatsudera -b ^ - an ancient temple in downtown Nagoya - in
1990 led by Ochiai Toshinori a number of significant new manuscripts

of Buddhist texts came to light.The Nanatsudera cache includes a manuscript
set of the Buddhist canon that is comprised of some 1,162 works in nearly 5,000
juan (rolls) that were copied between 1175 and 1180. Although this set of manu¬
scripts had been known to the academic world as early as 1900, the full impor¬
tance of the collection was not known until after the systematic survey done in
1990, when it was discovered that this handwritten canon was not merely a copy
of a printed edition of the canon, but contained versions of texts that predated the
Song dynasty edition of the canon, many apocryphal works (including the earli¬
est extant apocryphon entitled Piluo sanmeijing HlkPH 0^,g), and editions of texts
that were thought to be long lost (including the Sanjiefofa a key text in

the Three Stages movement). The initial attention to the dramatic discovery at
Nanantsudera (and subsequent discoveries at Kongoji and other temples)
has not led to an outpouring of new research and those manuscripts have regret¬
tably inspired few studies outside of Japan.

The discovery of apocryphal manuscripts and manuscripts of texts long
thought to be lost has been a significant development in the study of Chinese
religions, but most of the extant texts discovered thus far are the product of elite
circles. It has been much more difficult to gain access to manuscripts related to
popular forms of religious beliefs and practices. One of the reasons for that dif¬
ficulty is that non-elite forms of manuscripts rarely circulate widely or freely in
the light of day. Over the past two decades, however, scholars doing fieldwork in
various regions of China have brought to our attention the surprising survival of
wide range of religious manuscripts, including (among other things) handwrit¬
ten (chaohen ritual manuals {keyi ben ^(ft^) and family genealogies (jiapu

9 Carter 1955, 57.

10 For a description of this discovery and the nature of the manuscripts found at Nanatsudera
see Ochiai 1991, and the essays contained therein by Antonino Forte and Makita Tairyo.

11 One important exception is Hubbard 2000.

The Archive Inside: Manuscripts Found within Chinese Religious Statues

363

S^ia). These new discoveries have already forced us to begin to revise our tradi¬
tional picture of Chinese religionsT^

In addition to the advancements made in the study of Dunhuang manuscripts
and other forms of religious manuscripts, the one area of significant new work
that I would like to introduce here is the history of the placing manuscripts inside
of Buddhist statues. This section will also serve to provide the background and
historical context for the following section of the paper regarding the interring of
manuscripts inside of statues in the Hunan region. There is a paucity of surviving
evidence that impedes our ability to provide a complete account of the prehistory
of the practice of placing documents - along with other things such as symbolic
viscera and small animals - inside of statues. Based on surviving evidence and
textual information, it seems that the practice of placing manuscripts inside of
statues is first found in China in connection with Buddhism, and the practice
can be clearly traced back to Indian Buddhist precedents and traced forward to
developments in Korea and Japan.There is a large body of evidence on placing
texts and relics inside of stupas and statues in India. With the departure of the
Buddha, as Daniel Boucher has noted, the Buddhist tradition struggled with two
competing tendencies: “to locate the Buddha in his corporeal body, especially
as left behind in his relics; or to locate the “true” Buddha in the dharma, his
teachings.”^'* In terms of our topic here, we find both the interring of relics and
texts within Buddhist statuary (and in reliquaries and stupas), from a very early
strata of Buddhist history. During his travels in India in the 7*^ century, Xuan-
zang (602-664) observed, “There is a practice in India of making incense
powder into paste to make small stupas 5 to 6 inches high. People write [pieces of]
scripture and place them into the interior [of these small stupas]. They call these
dharmasanm."^ In confirmation of Xuanzang’s observations the archaeological
record has turned up abundant evidence of this practice. In a different Buddhist
text translated by Divakara in the 7* century we read that “if inside this stupa
one encloses the [body of the] Tathagatha down to even one minute portion of his
relics, hair, teeth, beard, or fingernails; or else if one deposits the twelve section
scripture, which is the storehouse of the Tathagata’s dharma, down to even one
four line verse, this person’s merit will be as great as the brahma heaven.In
short; both relics and texts may consecrate a stupa. Contemporaneous with this

12 This literature is now quite extensive, see among others, Lagerwey 1996-2002; Wang Ch’iu-
kuei 1993, and the review of some of the literature in Overmyer 2002.

13 On this general phenomena see Robson 2015.

14 Boucher 1991,1.

15 T.51.920a21-23. Translation follows that in Boucher 1991, 7.

16 Translation here from Boucher 1991, 9.

364

James Robson

practice of consecrating stupas, however, is an increasing use throughout the
Buddhist world of relics and texts to consecrate statues. In the account of his
travels in India and the Malay Archipelago the Chinese pilgrim Yijing (635-
713) recorded that “when the people make images and kaityas (caityas) which
consist of gold, silver, copper, iron, earth, lacquer, bricks and stone, or when they
heap up the snowy sand (lit. sand-snow), they put in the images or kaityas two
kinds of sariras [relics]. 1. The relics of the Great Teacher. 2. The Gatha of the
Chain of Causation.In a short sutra preserved in Chinese entitled On The Merit
of Bathing the Buddha, translated by Yijing in 710, we also read;

Noble son, all Buddhas, World - Honored Ones have three bodies. They are known as the
dharmakaya, the sambogakaya, and the nirmanakaya. After my nirvana, whoever wishes
to do homage to these three bodies, should do homage to my relics. But, there are two
kinds: the first is the bodily relic, the second is the dharma-verse relic. 1 will now recite
the verse: ‘All things arise from a cause; The Tathagata has explained their cause; The ces¬
sation of the cause of these things; This the great ascetic has explained.’ If men, women,
or the five groups of mendicants would build an image of the Buddha, of if those without
strength would deposit one as large as a grain of barley, or build a stupa - its body the size
of a jujube, its mast the size of a needle, its parasol equal to a flake of bran, its relic like
a mustard seed ... If in accordance with one’s own strength and ability one can be truly
sincere and respectful, it [the image or the stupa] would be like my present body, equal
without difference.^*

Another short text from Gilgit states that “images of the Buddha should be made
either tall or short and with either a relic or with the pratityasamutpada gatha
inside.”^® There is, therefore, abundant evidence that in India images and stupas
were already being consecrated with relics and texts. A later Indian text - the
Vajravali by Abhayakaragupta (1064?-1125?) - explicates, for example, that “you
should at the time of the making of an image leave the head or back hollow. When
completed you should write a dharani on birch bark with saffron or bezoar and
wrap them around the relic which as been purified through the bathing ritual and
then place them in the hollow space.There is, therefore, abundant evidence
that in India Buddhist images and stupas were already being consecrated with
relics and handwritten manuscripts.

Evidence for the fact that the practice of interring objects and manuscripts
inside of statues spread to East Asia is perhaps best preserved in Japan, though

17 Takakusu 1966,150.

18 Boucher 1995, 65.

19 Tathagatabimbakarapanasutra (Gilgit Ms. No. 18). Cited in Boucher 1991,14.

20 Bentor 1995, 255. See also Bentor 1996.

The Archive Inside: Manuscripts Found within Chinese Religious Statues

365

I can only mention a single key example in the space available here.^^ In 1954,
Japanese scholars made an important discovery while conducting research on
the Seiryoji Shaka During the course of their research they found that

the image had a rather large cavity on its backside (51/2"' x ll" and 3" deep) that
was stuffed with 500 different types of objects. Prior to a pioneering article pub¬
lished in 1956 by Henderson and Hurvitz that statue had not attracted attention
by art historians.^^ Based on an inscription on the backside of the cover of the
cache we know that the image was made between the 9‘*' day of the eigth month
and the 5* day of the ninth month 985 for Chdnen (938-1016), a Japanese
pilgrim who came to China and returned in 986, by two brothers - named Zhang
Yanjiao and Zhang Yanxi - from Taizhou (modern Zhejiang

Province). The objects in the back of the statue had all been wrapped in cloth and
can be grouped into four major categories: intestines, manuscripts, textiles, and
misc. objects. The intestines are about 50” long and are made of silk and flecked
with ink to make it appear food is moving through the tract. At the end of the silk
tube is a circular silk pouch labeled “stomach.” The other end of the silk tube
has another object that may be the bladder. Other objects represent the liver, gall
bladder, kidneys, lungs and heart. The urnd on the forehead may cover another
cavity where the Buddha’s tooth relic is installed (at least this is what the inven¬
tory list claims).

The “oath text” by the monk Chdnen and his friend Gizd that was completed
in 972 gives a sense of their religious fervor and is signed with imprints of their
hands done in (presumably their own) blood. The “catalogue” lists all the items
interred at the time the statue was consecrated and the cavity sealed. The cata¬
logue also reveals that the intestines were made and donated by three Buddhist
nuns from the Miaoshan Monastery ^ and seven other women from Taizhou.

The donors mentioned on the list are exclusively monks and nuns and there is
only one elite government official that is named. Most pertinent to this study is
the presence in the cache of handwritten copies of the Suvarnapmbhdsa Sutra
and Lotus Sutra. The cache also included a wood block print of the Vajracchedikd
Prajndparamitd Sutra that is dated to 985 - the year the statue was closed - which
was commissioned by a donor named Wu Shouzhen There are also a

number of pictures of the Buddha and various bodhisattvas, coins, and a bronze
mirror with an image of Guanyin/Kannon on it, glass fragments, small pieces of
silver, mica flakes, a small brass bell, and over 400 mostly small fragments of 110

21 See Kurata Bunsaku 1973. The Japanese secondary literature on interred objects is

now immense and impossible to cite in its entirety.

22 Henderson / Hurvitz 1956. The following description of the contents of the statue draws on
the report of Henderson / Hurvitz 1956.

366

James Robson

different varieties of textiles. In their study of this image Henderson and Hurvitz
claimed that many other images wrould have had just these kinds of contents, but
regretfully they do not detail the other statues vdth interred objects that they may
have been awrare of.

It is not possible here to detail the full range of manuscripts that have been
found interred inside of statues or other objects, but the number of manuscripts
found thus far suggested that further investigation and research is rvarranted.
Nowr, horwever, I rvould like to turn my attention to the more recent discovery of a
cache of manuscripts that has opened up new possibilities for studying local and
popular forms of Chinese religion. In 1984, Chinese customs officials in Hunan
province intercepted a shipping container filled with nearly a thousand small
wooden religious statuettes bound for the antiquities markets in Hong Kong. The
seizure of that shipment did not attract the attention of the news media or schol¬
ars and the statues were eventually deposited in the Hunan Provincial Museum
where they have remained on storage shelves. Since 1984, four other private col¬
lections of statues, each with over one thousand statues, have come to light (two
in China, one in the US, and one in Taiwan).Beginning with a project headed
by Prof. Alain Arrault of the Ecole Francaise d’Extreme-Orient, all of these collec¬
tions are now being catalogued and studied. The main object of the larger project
is to create a single interactive digital archive and database of the statues by pro¬
viding pictures of the statues, an inventory of the objects interred inside, scans
of the documents, transcriptions of the documents, and rich descriptions of the
attributes of each statue.^'* There is not enough space in the confines of this essay
to address the particularities of each of the statue collections, but suffice it to say
here that nearly all of the statues - despite where they were collected or are pres¬
ently housed - originated in Hunan province (or in adjoining regions). The oldest
extant statue in these collections dates from the Ming dynasty, but the majority
date from the Qing dynasty to the present day.

How are these statues related to manuscripts? While there is still much to
be learned from the detailed study of these statues regarding the local religious
practices of the Hunan region, what is most pertinent to the present essay is what
is found inside of them.^^ Indeed, it is the Hunan statue’s contents that are their
most distinctive feature and sets them apart from similar statues found in other
regions of China, such as those in the famous de Groot collection of deity statues

23 The most comprehensive description and study of the collections in China is now Arrault
2008. For a brief discussion of the collection in Milwaukee, USA, see Robson 2007.

24 For a description of the database and some example data entry cards see Arrault 2008.

25 For more general studies see Arrault / Bussotti 2008; Arrault 2008; Fu Juliang -BRS 1998;
and Stevens 1978.

The Archive Inside: Manuscripts Found within Chinese Religious Statues

367

from Fujian.^® The statuettes from Hunan are distinguished by the fact that they
contain a small niche carved into their backside that is stuffed with a variety of
objects including such things as herbs, paper money, desiccated insects. The
primary object in the cache for the purposes of the present essay on manuscripts
is, however, a “consecration certificate” {yizhi me), which is a handwritten manu¬
script providing an unprecedented amount of information that is placed inside of
the statue during an elaborate “eye opening” consecration ritual {kaiguang
I have therefore begun to treat these documents as constituting an alternative
form of a manuscript archive that differs somewhat from the kind of documents
that one finds in libraries or other manuscript collections. The consecration cer¬
tificates tend to have a rather standardised form - as we will see below - though
the content of the certificate can vary dramatically in length, from a few lines to a
few pages. In the space available in this essay I intend to provide a description of
this alternative archive and its potential value for the study of Chinese religions.

When one of these small wooden statues is turned around one finds a small
cavity that is covered with a plug of wood. Removing the wooden cover reveals
the cache of materials and the consecration certificate - though it should also be
noted that some statues are also embellished with inscriptions on the outside that
share much in common with the paper documents found inside of the statues.
Extracting the paper from the statue and preparing it for the making of the digital
scan can present problems for the researcher. The paper manuscripts have been
folded up inside of these statues for a long time - in some cases for centuries -
under less than ideal circumstances. Over time the paper may have become dete¬
riorated due to exposure to moisture, or it may have become “glued” together
due its proximity to the organic matter that is also found in the cache. The main
issue that is faced is how to “open” them to obtain a clear scan of the document
and retrieve the information they contain. At the outset of this project I spent
some time working with paper conservators at the University of Michigan in order
to develop different techniques for successfully opening up these manuscripts.^^
While some problems still remain, we made much progress in understanding how
to deal with the most problematic cases. In most cases, it was sufficient to merely
expose the paper to moisture, either by suspending them over a water bath, by
using a fine mist, or by soaking them in water. In some cases, however, when
the paper was in a fragile state it was best to use alcohol to assist in the process.
The most problematic manuscripts to unfold are, in my experience at least, those

26 Werblowsky / Stevens / Mourer 2003. See also Yang Yanjie 2009.

27 I appreciate the time, assistance, and resources provided by Shannon Zachary (Head of Pres¬
ervation and Conservation) and Cathleen A. Baker (Senior Paper Conservator) of the Preservation
and Conservation unit of the University of Michigan Library.

368

James Robson

that have talismans that were consecrated with what appears to be some kind of
animal blood (probably that of a rooster) and have become stuck together.

In general, the consecration certificates begin with the precise address of
the home or shrine were a statue was installed, indicating the district, town,
village, name of temple or Miaowang JUi - a religious site that falls between the
City God temples (Chenghuang miao ^PiJH) and the smaller Earth Deity altars
(Tudi ci Those addresses are given in the designations that correspond

to the dynasty and the administrative divisions used during that period and can
therefore be very difficult to convert to contemporary locations. Following the
“address” is a section that includes the names of all of the patrons who com¬
missioned the statue. While many of the consecration certificates merely contain
lists of names, some of them also contain short biographies that can be valuable
when used in conjunction with other types of sources, such as family genealo¬
gies {jiapu Mm). Now that we have a rather large database of these manuscripts
we can begin to study a variety of connections between the names mentioned.
Within a consecration certificate we might find, for example, that the name of
a son or grandson appears in the dedication of an image to his father or grand¬
father. That same name might also appear on a consecration certificate from 70
years later, but now as the object of a statue consecrated on his behalf, with a
corresponding list of the names of his own offspring who were responsible for
commissioning the statue. Furthermore, based on the data on the consecration
certificates we can perform a search on a particular name that appears as a patron
(or a specific address) in order to gain a sense of what one family’s domestic altar
might have looked like.

Next on the consecration certificate comes the name of the figure represented
by the statuette. The fact that the consecration certificate provides the precise
identity of the statue takes away much of the guesswork that is associated with
identifications based solely on external iconographic features. The identities of
the statues can be classified into four general categories: national deities, local
deities, ancestors, and Daoist priests or ritual masters.

Following the name on the consecration certificate is the reason for the con¬
secration. This section of the consecration certificate can vary dramatically in
both the specificity of content and length. The reasons given for the consecration
of a statue tend to fall into two general types of categories: 1) those expressing
a vow or wish for something, referred to as a xuyuan ITU and 2) those express¬
ing thanks for something provided by the deity, referred to as a huanyuan MM.
While the vows to deities often have a rather general, or even formulaic, content -
see the example given below - others reveal more intimate concerns, such as a
request that a father, mother or son recover from a specific illness.

The Archive Inside: Manuscripts Found within Chinese Religious Statues

369

The final written information on the consecration certificate is usually the
name of the carver of the statue. This seemingly trivial information turns out to
be quite useful, though it requires us to emerge out of the darkness of the cavity
and into the light of the carver’s workshop. Once this project is completed and we
have the data from all of the different statue collections in a fully searchable rela¬
tional database, then we can begin to do searches on particular carvers names
and paint a clearer picture of the context for the production of these statues.
What is already evident, however, is that carvers of statues did not just repre¬
sent a trade, but they were in fact religious specialists themselves (like those who
were members of other guilds). Statue carvers are connected with the guild of
wood carvers and their initiation into carving is just like initiation into a religious
lineage. The carving process itself has religious elements, and when a statue
is completed for a client the carver can then don his religious vestments and
perform the consecration ritual. Many of the consecration certificates are closed
with a string of talismans {fu lu which can invoke the presence of a litany
of local and trans-regional deities.

Let us now take a look at one of the consecration certificates [M0094] to gain
a better sense of their form and content.

da1« nxn* 9 I tUliM

Fig- 1: Consecration certificate from Hunan [M009A], ArtAsia collection, Milwaukee, Wl.

This consecration certificate [M0094] begins with an invocation stating that this
statue is extremely auspicious and that its numinous qualities can bring protec¬
tion and peace.^® Next, the precise address where this statue was located is pro¬
vided: a local village shrine in the Shaoyang district of Baoqing prefecture

28 M0094 refers to a manuscript within the Milwaukee collection.

370

James Robson

$BJS in Hunan province It also provides the names of all of the patrons

who commissioned the carving of this statue, including: Zhou Weichang JlISfi,
his wife nee Hu 4SK, their eldest son Hehan and his vdfe nee Fan the
daughters Hejin ^0:^ and Helin ^0#. It also includes the names of the family
members living in their house including: Zhou Weizhi and his vdfe (xieshi
nee Zeng^R, their sons Hexing Hecai Heshu ^0^ and daughters
Xingjin and Dongjin The statue is identified as being of their ancestor
named Zhou Falong JliStI, who was born in 1847 and died in 1901. The “inten¬
tion,” or reason for consecration, is presented in a general formulaic pattern: “So
that there will be protection and auspiciousness for all family members, so that
the six domestic animals will be peaceful, and that all the family’s affairs will be
propitious. May the males enjoy good fortune and the females receive good luck.”
Then follows the date that the statue was consecrated with an “eye opening” cer¬
emony: 1914, and the name of the sculptor: Zhou Falei Jl;i M.

These statues and their manuscripts provide access to the normally impen¬
etrable realm of non-elite religion as it is practiced inside of the home. The manu¬
scripts also lead us into the realms of local history, religion, and culture, that are
not well attested in Chinese printed sources. At the same time, however, these
manuscripts lead us out into other manuscript archives (such as handwritten
ritual manuals, family genealogies, and documents in regional archives), which
help to provide a more robust liturgical, social and historical context for inter¬
preting their content. Despite the development and spread of printing technology
in China, in addition to the trenchant critiques and proscriptions of religion at
different junctures in Chinese history, manuscripts related to the beliefs and prac¬
tices of religion can still be found. If anything, the manuscripts found within the
statues from the Hunan region - and other recently discovered manuscripts, such
as those found at Nanatsudera in Japan - should encourage scholars to redouble
their efforts in searching for extant manuscripts. Significant manuscript collec¬
tions survive in unlikely places in contemporary China. The extra effort expended
to unearth them promises to be worthwhile, since their contents 'will no doubt
add significant new bodies of information that are not usually found in printed
texts.

References

Adamek, Wendi Leigh (2007), The Mystique of Transmission: On Early Chan History and its
Contexts, New York: Columbia University Press.

Arrault, Alain (2008), “Analytic Essay on the Domestic Statuary of Central Hunan: The Cult to
Divinities, Parents, and Masters”, in: Journal of Chinese Religions 36,1-53.

The Archive Inside: Manuscripts Found within Chinese Religious Statues

371

Arrault, Alain / Bussotti, Michela (2008), “Statuettes religieuses et certificats de consecration
en Chine du Sud (XVII'-XX'^ siecle)”, \n: Arts Asiatiques, 63, 36-60.

Bentor, Yael (1995), “On the Indian Origins of the Tibetan Practice of Depositing Relics and
DharanTsin Stupas and Images”, \n: Journal of the American Oriental Society 115: 2,
2A8-261.

Bentor, Yael (1996), Consecration of Images and Stupas in Indo-Tibetan Tantric Buddhism,
Leiden: Brill.

Bokenkamp, Stephen R. {1997), Early Daoist Scriptures, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Boucher, Daniel (1991), “The Pratltyasamutpddagdthd and Its Role in the Medieval Cult of the
Relics”, in: journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 14:1,1-27.

Boucher, Daniel (1995), “Sutra on the Merit of Bathing the Buddha”, in: Lopez 1995, 59-68.

Broughton, Jeffrey (1999), The Bodhidharma Anthology: The Earliest Records of Zen, Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Buswell, Robert E., jr. (ed.) (1990), Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.

Carter, Thomas Francis (1955), The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward, New
York: Ronald Press Co.

Cerquiglini, Bernard (1999), In Praise of the Variant: A Critical History of Philology, Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Chartier, Roger (1996), “Gutenberg Revisited from the East,” in: Late Imperial China 17:1, 1-9.

Cherniack, Susan (1994), “Book Culture and Textual Transmission in Sung China”, in: Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies, 54:1, 5-125.

Chia, Lucille (2002), Printing for Profit: The Commercial Publishers ofjianyang, Fujian
Centuries), Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Demieville, Paul (1952), Le concile de Lhasa, Paris: Impr. nationale de France.

Demieville, Paul (1973), Choixd’etudes bouddhiques 1929-1970, Leiden: Brill.

Drege, Jean-Pierre (1991), Les Bibliotheques en Chine au temps des manuscripts, Paris: Ecole
franfaise d’Extreme-Orient.

Demieville, Paul (ed.), (1999), Images de Dunhuang: Dessins etpeintures sur papier des fond
Pelliot et Stein, Paris: Ecole frangaise d’Extreme-Orient.

Drege, Jean-Pierre / Venture, Olivier (eds.) (2007), Etudes de Dunhuang et Turfan, Geneve: Droz.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. (1983), The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Fang, Guangchang iTKIi (2006), Zhongguoxie ben Dazang jingyan Jiu

[Research on Handwritten Manuscripts of the Buddhist Canon], Shanghai: Shanghai gu ji
chu ban she.

Faure, Bernard (1988), La volonte d’orthodoxie dans le bouddhisme chinois, Paris: Editions du
Centre national de la recherche scientifique.

Faure, Bernard (1997), The Will to Orthodoxy: A Critical Genealogy of Northern Chan Buddhism,
Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Febvre, Lucien / Martin, Henri-Jen (1976), The Coming of the Book, London: NLB.

Forte, Antonino (1976), Political Propaganda and Ideology in China at the End of the Seventh
Century, Naples: Istituto universitario orientale, Seminario di studi asiatici.

Fu Juliang fiRfi (1998), “Hunan minjian mudiao shenxiang iffliiiSFBlzKIttt® [Wood Carved Folk
Deity Statues From Hunan]”, in: Zhongguo wenwu shijie 150, 54-68.

372

James Robson

Fujieda, Akira (1966 and 1969), “The Tun-huang manuscripts: A General Description”, in:

Zinbun: Memoirs of the Research Institute for Humanistic Studies, Kyoto University 9, 1-32;
and 10,17-39.

Gao, Guofan itH® (1989), Zhongguo minsu tanwei 't'BIS'fSffi® [An Exploration of Chinese
Popular Customs], Jiangsu.

Gao, Guofan (199A), Dunhuang minsu ziliao daolun SfiSfSMSjJfil [Introductory Remarks on
Popular Material from Dunhuang], Taibei: Xin wenfeng chuban gongsi.

Gernet, ]acques (1956), Les aspects economiques du bouddhisme dans la societe chinoise du k®
usX^siecle, Saigon: Ecole frangaise d’Extreme-Orient.

Guignard, M.R. (1997), “The Chinese Precedent”, in: Febvre / Martin 1976, 71-76.

Flenderson, Gregory / Flurvitz, Leon (1956), “The Buddha ofSeiryd]i: New Finds and New
Theory”, \n:Artibus Asiae 19:1, 5-55.

Flu, Shi ffliS (1968), Shenhuiheshang yiji [The Surviving Works of Shenhui],

Taipei: FluShi [inian guan.

FIubbard, Jamie (2000), “The Teaching of the Three Levels and the Manuscript Texts of the
Sanchieh fofa”, in: Ochiai / Tairyo 2000.

Flubbard, Jamie (2001), Absolute Delusion, Perfect Buddhahood: The Rise and Fall of a Chinese
Heresy, Flonolulu: University of Flawaii Press.

Ikeda, On >t!lB3m (1979), Chugoku kodaisekicho kenkyu 'PH'Sf'tffiillWSE [Research on Ancient
Chinese Contracts], Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Tdyd Bunka Kenkyu]o.

Kalinowski, Marc (ed.) (2003), Divination etsociete dans la Chine medievale: Etude des

manuscrits de Dunhuang de la Bibliotheque nationale de France et de la British Library,
Paris: Bibliotheque nationale de France.

Kanaoka, Shdkd / Ikeda, On JtfeEB™ / Fukui, Fumimasa (eds.) (1983), Tonko to

Chugoku dokyo StSt 'PBii® [Dunhuang and Daoism], Tokyo: Daitd Shuppansha.

Kuo, Li-ying (1994), Confession et contrition dans le bouddhisme chinois du v^ aux^siecle,

Paris: Ecole fran^aise d’Extreme-Orient.

Kurata, Bunsaku (1973), “Zonal nonyuhin App” [Ob]ects Deposited Inside of

Sculptures], in: Nihon no bijutsu 86.

Lagerwey, ]ohn (ed.) (1996-2002), Traditional Hakka Society Series, Flong Kong: Guo ji kejia
xue hui.

Lopez, Donald S. ]r. (ed.) (1995), Buddhism in Practice, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mair, Victor FI. (1989), Tang Transformation Texts: A Study of the Buddhist Contribution to the
Rise of Vernacular Fiction and Drama in China, Cambridge: Flarvard University Press.

Makita, Tairyo (1976), Gikyd kenkyu [Studies on Apocryphal Sutras], Tokyo:

Kyoto Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyu]o.

Makita, Tairyo / Fukui, Fumimasa (eds.) (1984), Tonko to chugoku bukkyd

SMt cpHfAiit [Dunhuang and Chinese Buddhism], Tokyo: Daitd Shuppansha.

McDermott, ]oseph P. (2006), A Social History of the Chinese Book: Books and Literati Culture in
Late imperial China, Flong Kong: Flong Kong University Press.

McRae, John R. (1986), The Northern School and the Formation of Early Ch'an Buddhism,
Flonolulu: University of Flawaii Press.

Mollier, Christine (1990), Une apocalypse taoTste du debut du siecle: Le livre des Incantations
Divines des Grottes Abyssales, Paris: College de France, Institut des hautes etudes
chinoises.

Mollier, Christine (2008), Buddhism and Taoism Face to Face: Scripture, Ritual, and
Iconographic Exchange in Medieval China, Flonolulu: University of Flawaii Press.

The Archive Inside: Manuscripts Found within Chinese Religious Statues

373

Naundorf, Gert / Pohl, Karl-Heinz / Schmidt, Hans-Hermann (eds.) (1985), Religion und

Philosophie in Ostasien: Festschrift fur Hans Steininger zum 65. Geburtstag, Wurzburg:
Kdnigshausen 8i Neumann.

Needham, Joseph (1970a), “The Unity of Science; Asia’s Indispensable Contribution”, in:
Needham 1970b.

Needham, Joseph (1970b), Clerks and craftsmen in China and the West, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Nishiwaki, Tsuneki (2007), isutanburu daigaku toshokan shozo Torufan shutsudo

kango danpen kenkyO H S Jl/7 7 >tlj± MlSBfX'WSE [Four
Fragments of Chinese Materials Unearthed in Turfan Field in the Collection of the Istanbul
University Library], Kyoto: Ddshisha Daigaku Bungakubu Bunka Shigakuka Nishiwaki
Kenkyushitsu.

Ochiai, Toshinori (1991), The Manuscripts of Nanatsu-dera, Kyoto: Istituto italiano di cultura,
Scuola di studi sull’Asia orientale.

Ochiai, Toshinori / Makita, Tairyo feEBlSft (eds.) (2000), Nanatsudera koitsu kyoten

kenkyusosho vol. 5, Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha.

Ofuchi, Ninji (1978), Tonko dokyo [DaoistScriptures from Dunhuang. 2 vols. Vol. 1:

Mokuroku-hen SfiJIStSttS (A catalogue of Daoist works from Dunhuang). Vol. 2:
Zuroku-hen [Manuscript Reproductions], Tokyo: Fukubu shoten.

Overmyer, Daniel (ed.) (2002), Ethnography in China Today: A Critical Assessment of Methods
and Results, Taipei: Yuan-Liou Pub. Co.

Rao, Zongyi (1956), LaoziXiang’erzhu jiao jian [Annotated Critical

Edition oi the Xiang’er Commentary to the Laozi], FlongKong:Dongnanshuju.

Robson, James (2007), inside Asian images: An Exhibition of Religious Statuary from theArtAsia
Gallery Collection, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Flumanities.

Robson, James (2015), “Flidden in Plain View: Concealed Contents, Secluded Statues, and
Revealed Religion”, in: Varsano 2015.

Schipper, Kristofer M. (1985), “Taoist Ordination Ranks in the Tunhuang Manuscripts”, in:
Naundorf et al. 1985.

Seidel, Anna (1969), La divinisation de Lao Tseu dans le taoTsme des Han, Paris: Ecole fran^aise
d’Extreme-Orient.

Soymie, Michel (ed.) (1979), Contributions aux etudes sur Touen-houang, Geneve, Paris: Droz.

Soymie, Michel (ed.) (1981), Nouvelles contributions aux etudes de Touen-houang, Geneve,
Paris: Droz.

Soymie, Michel (ed.) (1984), Contributions aux etudes de Touen-houang, vol. 3, Paris

Stevens, Keith (1978), “Altar images from Flunan and Kiangsi”, in: journal of the Hong Kong
Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 18, 41-48 and plates on 217-222.

Takakusu, J. (1886 and 1966), A Record of the Buddhist Religion as Practised in india and the
Malay Archipelago (671-695), Oxford: Clarendon, reprint Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.

Tanaka, Ryoshd EH'PfiBp (1983), Tonkozenshu bunken no kenkyu SfiilSltStCDWSE [Research
on Chan Dunhuangwritings], Tokyo: Daito Shuppansha.

Teiser, Stephen F. (1994), The Scripture of the Ten Kings and the Making of Purgatory in
Medieval Chinese Buddhism, Flonolulu: University of Flawaii Press.

Tian, Xiaofei (2005), Tao Yuanming and Manuscript Culture: The Record of a Dusty Table,

Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Tsien, T.FI. (1962), Written on Bamboo and Silk: The Beginnings of Chinese Books and
inscriptions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

374

James Robson

Varsano, Paula (ed.) (2015), The Rhetoric of Hiddenness in Traditional Chinese Culture, Albany:
State University of New York Press.

Wang, Ch’lu-kuel IKS (ed.) (1993), Min-su ch’ii-i ts'ung-shu 80 vols., Taipei: Ca

tuan fa ren Shi Hezheng min su wen hua jl jin hul.

Werblowsky, R. J. Zwl / Stevens, Keith / Mourer, Roland (eds.) (2002), Dieux de Chine, le
pantheon populaire du Fujian dej.j.M. de Groot, Lyon: Museum d’hlstolre naturelle;
Clermont-Ferrand: Un, deux, quatre.

Wu, Chl-yu (1960), Pen-tsi king (Livre du terme original: Ouvrage taoTste inedit du VIP siecle.
Manuscrits retrouves a Touen-houang reproduits en facsimile, Paris: Centre national de la
recherche sclentlflque.

Yampolsky, Philip (1967), The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch, New York: Columbia
University Press.

Yanaglda, Selzan WHSili (1967), Shokizenshu shisho no kenkyu [Research

on Early Chan Historical Works], Kyoto: Hdzdkan.

Yang, Yanjle S®# (2010): “Mlnxl Kejla dlqu de zuxlan shen chongbal”

http://lA0.115.170.1/speech/9210/921029-01.pdf (seen

1.9.2010).

Yoshloka, Yoshltoyo (1959,1970,1976), Dokyo to bukkyd jlSttfASt [Daolsm and

Buddhism]. 3 vols., Tokyo: Nihon Gakujutsu Shlnkdkal.

Index

Abhayakaragupta 36A
Aksum 39-AO, 48
Aksumite Collection 60-64
Alberuni 191-192
Alexander the Great 189,216
Anavataptagatha 186,190
andemta 55-59

annotation 18, 20, 58-59,131-137,142-145,
316, 321-323

Aramaic 163,183,214-220
archetype 52-53, 58, 63-64,124
Aristotle 9-10,16, 21-22
Asoka 163,214

Basalota Mika’el 45
BhakhshalT manuscript 263, 268
Bible 13, 41, 43-44, 50-51
bilingual manuscripts 126-131,149
book covers 49-50, 82-83, 285-286, 288,
292-293, 297

book formats 49-50,275,285,294

- codex 37-40, 49, 80, 82, 88,110, 220

- scroll (roll) 37, 49,166,183ff, 287, 309,

343

- pothi 191, 276, 285-288, 294, 309
bookbinding 42, 49-50, 82-83, 95,102,121,

285, 297

Borno Qur’anic manuscripts 113-120,
124-129

Buddhism 159,167,183, 219ff, 227ff, 259,
277, 361, 363-364
Byzantium

- First Byzantine Humanism 11-14,29

Cerquiglini, Bernard 360-361

Chartier, Roger 359-360

China 79-80, 96-97,100-109, 341ff, 359ff

- Chinese classics 348,350,356,360
Christianity 39, 48

codicology 45, 49-50, 79, 276

- cf. book formats

- cf. bookbinding
consecration certificate 367-369
consecration ritual 367, 369

Contini, Gianfranco 53-54
copyists 38, 42-43, 49, 51, 58, 60, 64, 81,
83,85-86,108, 262
Curtius Rufus 189

Dabra Bizan 43-44
Daoism 361

dating 45, 48,128, 229, 268, 279, 291-295,
300-304

Dharmapada 183ff
DharmasarTra 363
Diamond Sutra 361
DTrghagama 191, 227ff
Dunhuang 302-306, 309, 323, 329, 341,
346-350, 352, 355-356, 361-362

education 51,143,151,167,356
Ekottarikagama 190, 263
’Enda ’Abba Garima 48
Eritrea 37-38, 46
Ethiopia 37ff

Famen menhuan 102,107-110

Gandhara 159,183ff
GandharT 183-184, 207, 218, 220
Gargam manuscripts 120-121,124-125
Gedimu (qadTm) 101

genealogical lists 53,113,116,118-120, 362,
370

Gilgit 204, 227ff

glosses 29, 96, 98,100,110-111,115,127,
131,134-135,143,145
Guanyin 365

handwriting (identification) 332-339
Henderson, Gregory 365
History of the Alexandrian Episcopate 63
huanyuan 368

Hunan 363, 366-367, 369-370
Hurvitz, Leon 365-366

ioannikios 22

ijaza 94-95,105,108-109,110

376

Index

JamT, Nural-DTn 99
Jingdian shiwen 346-347,356

Kalidasa 165,189,199
Kanem 115ff
Kanem-Borno 115ff
Kanembu 115ff
Kaniska 185, 221
Kannon 365
Kanuri 113ff
KhadgavisanasQtra 190
Khri Lde srong brtsan 306
Khri Srong Ide brtsan 306
Kongdji 362
Kubrawiyya 99
Kumarasambhava 189

Lachmann, Karl 52-53
Ladakh 304,312

layout 93,120,122-129,144-149, 228, 289

- cf. ruling

MaMingxin 103,105
Mada’ih 99,104-105
MaghribT 87ff, 110
Makandikavadana 189-192
marks

- abbreviation 15, 348ff

- correction 342

- diacritical 14,131,164

- owner 92

- phonetic 346-347

- punctuation 202, 256, 258, 341ff

- repetition 345-346

- reverence 354-355

- section 352-353

- segmentation 18, 50, 342-343, 350ff

- separation 124, 350-351
Mashafa Berhan 44

material analysis 38,177, 278ff, 289ff

- fibre composition 295

Mazar Tagh 302, 309, 312, 328-329
Mengxi bitan 355
Miran 303,309,312
Mukhammas 99,105-106
Mulasarvastivada 258-259

Nanatsudera 362, 370
Napoleon 80

Naqshbandiyya-Jahriyya 99
Naqshbandiyya-Mujaddidiyya 107
Nearchus 216
Needham, Joseph 360-361
Nigeria 115-116,121-122

Ochiai, Toshinori 362
Octateuch 42-43,50,62
Old Kanembu 115-116,119-120,126-127,
129,131,133ff, 143ff

pagination 84, 247, 251ff
palaeography 51-52,113, 238, 278, 299ff
palimpsest 14, 49, 62, 80, 200
Palola Sahis 230, 253
paratexts 3-4

- colophon 41, 46, 48, 83-84, 91, 202, 351

- tables of contents 83

- cf. annotations

- cf. glosses

- cf. marks

Philoponus, John 14,21,27
philology 38, 45-45, 52ff, 176-177

- cf. textual criticism
Piluo sanmei jing 362
place-value system 230, 253, 255, 260
Plato 11,15, 25

Prajfiaparamita 203, 231, 234, 258-259, 365
pratityasamutpada gatha 364

Qadiriyya 99
Qalementos 57ff

Qur’an 38, 40, 82, 88, 93,102,113,115ff

reading 94,164,207,342-343
relics 213, 363ff
ritual manuals 362

rituals 61, 206, 212, 220, 322, 329, 364, 367,
369

ruling 122,278,281

Sarnyuktagama 190
SaiigTtisutra commentary 207
Bangs rgyas rgya mtsho 301, 316
Sanjiefofa 362

Index

377

Sanskrit 159ff, 183ff

scribes lAff, 50, 52, 59, 80, 85-86,151,161,
16A-165,175,184ff, 200ff, 215, 217,

227ff, 282, 305, 311ff, 317, 322, 331ff, 350

- scribal errors 52, 227-228, 235ff, 251,

259, 343
scripts

- 'AbbasTd (Kufic) 137,143

- Ajami 114ff

- Arabic-based (cf. also Ajami) 111

- Borno hand 137,140

- BrahmT 183, 300

- cuneiform 215

- Grantha 165,281,285

- IfrTqT 135,141

- Islamic 131ff

- Kashmir (cf. Sarada) 165,229,238

- KharosthT 163ff, 184ff

- MaghribT 114,135

- Proto-Sarada (cf. Kashmir) 229, 264-265

- pustaka 281, 285

- Sarada 165-166, 228, 255, 263

- Sino-Arabic 103-104

- Tibetan 301ff

- Xiaoerjing 79,103,111
Seirydji Shaka 365
SeldkarKanjur 282,284,290,292
Shitong 356

Silk Road 183,185-186,221
Simplicius 14,18-19
Sinodos 60ff
SirhindT, Ahmad 99
stupa 363

Sudani 92,113-114,151
Suvarnaprabhasa Sutra 365

Talas 81

talismans 368-369
Tarjumo 146ff
Tegray 37, 39, 46, 62

textual criticism 20, 22, 45, 54, 60,169,175ff
Thymelaeaceae family plants 290
Tibet 159,167, 275ff, 299ff

- Northeastern Tibet (Amdo) 304

- Tibetan Buddhist Canon 279,294
Traditio Apostolica 62-63
transliteration 11-12,103
typology 4, 52,116, 277ff, 299ff

Vajracchedika Prajfiaparamita Sutra 365
VajravalT 364
VikramorvasTya 189
vow 368

watermarks 82,128-129
West Africa 114ff
writing materials

- birch bark 137,166,183,192,197-198,

215ff

- Chinese laid paper 290

- mulberry paper 289-290

- palm leaf 159,161,166ff, 184ff, 200

- paper 49, 80ff, 200, 220f, 229, 280-281,

285, 289ff, 302, 308, 359

- papyrus 12, 41, 79ff, 193,166, 215-216,

276

- parchment 13, 37, 41ff, 80ff, 216ff

- “tre lune” paper 128-129
writing styles 113ff, 263

- Buddhist manuscript styles 319-324

- calligraphic 120,137-138,263

- epigraphic 304ff, 326-327

- epistolatary 317

- monastic 327

- official 312ff, 326-327

- square 306ff

- sutra 309ff, 326-327
writing substances

- blood 371,374

- gold 221, 280ff

- ink 20, 38, 49-50, 82, 84ff, 166,199-200,

217, 247, 275, 280ff, 365
writing tools 281

- brush 199,217,345

- pen 199, 215, 238ff

- stylus 166

Xuanzang 363
xuyuan 368

xylography 279-280, 295

Yemeni 87,92,94-95,105,110
Yijing 364

Zar’aYa‘qob 42-44

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Studies in Manuscript Cultures"

See other formats